Hey, Greg Hogan <c...@greghogan.com> skribis:
> I'd rather have some team make progress than no one, and the only way > to dig ourselves out of this hole is to be more assertive as Ricardo > has been here. Let everyone else follow his lead soon after. Yes. I think it’s good that qa.guix.gnu.org and the corresponding process (info "(guix) Managing Patches and Branches") brings some structure and legibility on the scheduling of branch merges—before that it was the wild west and there was no shared vision on who could merge what when. But we also need more flexibility, in particular the ability to say “this branch is ready so it should be merged now”. Could we provide a way to change the order of branches shown by qa.guix.gnu.org? > Why do we have two build farms? Can we not run both QA and CI on a > common build cache? The reason we have two build farms is historical (software, funding, and administration were/are different). It has pros (allows us to test package reproducibility and to have some redundancy) and cons (twice the maintenance effort). But I don’t think it’s central to the problem we’re seeing here. Ludo’.
