Re: none

> > My main concern is whether it will affect guix time-machine. > > Will the master branch be removed after the migration to the > > main > > branch on some time, or will it just stay there? > > Good question. > > ... > > I don’t think removing the master branch would break most uses of > `gui

Re: none

Z572 writes: > My main concern is whether it will affect guix time-machine. > Will the master branch be removed after the migration to the main > branch on some time, or will it just stay there? Even if the 'master' branch is removed, which to avoid confusion I think should be done, we still hav

Re: none

Hi Z572, Z572 writes: Liliana Marie Prikler writes: ## Repository Update Path For a complete list of repositories associated with the Guix project, see GCD 002 ‘Migrating repositories, issues, and patches to Codeberg’. Most repositories can rename their main branch with no issue (see a

Re: none

Liliana Marie Prikler writes: > ## Repository Update Path > > For a complete list of repositories associated with the Guix project, see > GCD 002 ‘Migrating repositories, issues, and patches to Codeberg’. Most > repositories can rename their main branch with no issue (see also Cost of > Revertin

Re: none

Hi Chris, thanks for your contribution! On Sun, Jul 24, 2016 at 11:52:52AM -0500, Christopher Allan Webber wrote: > GNU MediaGoblin is "hip and cool" (or something) in that it uses a web > based issue tracker primarily. Do you think we could learn from GNU MediaGoblin to be hipper and cooler? Wo

Re: none

Jookia writes: >> What makes things easier for me personally is to not worry about >> urgency. Nothing I do is really urgent. If I need to provide a package >> for someone at the institute I don’t wait for acceptance in Guix >> upstream; I just push it to our own “guix-bimsb” repo, which is used

Re: none

On Sun, Jul 24, 2016 at 02:35:41AM -0400, Leo Famulari wrote: > It does not include your patches. I archived the messages that included > your previously outstanding patches when you withdrew them from > consideration. Many of your patches were to parts of the system that I > don't understand. Read

Re: none

On Sun, Jul 24, 2016 at 02:17:21PM +1000, Jookia wrote: > On Fri, Jul 22, 2016 at 05:19:42PM -0400, Leo Famulari wrote: > > I can look at my Guix mailbox to see all outstanding patches. > > Can you post a list of this? Does it include my outstanding patches? It does not include your patches. I ar

Re: none

On Fri, Jul 22, 2016 at 05:19:42PM -0400, Leo Famulari wrote: > I can look at my Guix mailbox to see all outstanding patches. Can you post a list of this? Does it include my outstanding patches? > By the way, if someone asks the submitter to look into something or make > a change, the patch is no

Re: none

> If the maintainer wants to do additional changes, I also prefer he does it in > a separate patch/commit, as that would enable me to git pull --ff instead of > merge... I like fetching origin master, checking which patches made it in and then rebase -i origin/master and drop the commits that made

Re: none

On Fri, Jul 22, 2016 at 12:38:44PM -0400, myglc2 wrote: l...@gnu.org (Ludovic Courtès) writes: Hi Roel, Roel Janssen skribis: [...] One thing that really helped me in reducing the time to contribute changes to the upstream distribution, is to have a good workflow. I ended up doing the f

Re: none

On Fri, Jul 22, 2016 at 10:50:14PM +1000, Jookia wrote: > On top of that, the maintainers can't even use the mailing list properly: > Patches are lost, discussion doesn't happen, things are lost and it's hard for > new users to join in. Who exactly benefits from this workflow compared to > somethin

Re: none

l...@gnu.org (Ludovic Courtès) writes: > Hi Roel, > > Roel Janssen skribis: > [...] > >> One thing that really helped me in reducing the time to contribute >> changes to the upstream distribution, is to have a good workflow. I >> ended up doing the following: >> 1. Make the changes. >> 2. Commit

Re: none

Hi Roel, Roel Janssen skribis: > For the last twenty weeks or so I have started contributing packages to > GNU Guix mainly because Pjotr gave me the opportunity to do so. For me, > upstreaming was part of the deal, and I'd say it has taken me at least > two times the time it took me to write a

Re: none

On Fri, Jul 22, 2016 at 4:07 PM, Leo Famulari wrote: >> You've seen the mistakes I made, and the little syntactic things that >> kept going wrong over time. Near the end of my internship, however, I >> saw a positive change: Reviewers actually make little changes, instead >> of leaving it up to t

Re: none

> You've seen the mistakes I made, and the little syntactic things that > kept going wrong over time. Near the end of my internship, however, I > saw a positive change: Reviewers actually make little changes, instead > of leaving it up to the submitter to ``fix the indendation''. This > change ma

Re: none

On Fri, Jul 22, 2016 at 02:23:42PM +0200, Ricardo Wurmus wrote: > Pjotr Prins writes: > > > On Fri, Jul 22, 2016 at 06:48:47AM +0200, Tobias Geerinckx-Rice wrote: > >> In the spirit of (friendly) provocation, I'd nitpick on the term > >> ‘purist views’ and suggest the word ‘standards’ instead. ;-

Re: none

Pjotr Prins writes: > On Fri, Jul 22, 2016 at 06:48:47AM +0200, Tobias Geerinckx-Rice wrote: >> In the spirit of (friendly) provocation, I'd nitpick on the term >> ‘purist views’ and suggest the word ‘standards’ instead. ;-) > > Alright. I concede ;) > >> But seriously: the code reviews? Most Fr

Re: none

On Fri, Jul 22, 2016 at 06:48:47AM +0200, Tobias Geerinckx-Rice wrote: > In the spirit of (friendly) provocation, I'd nitpick on the term > ‘purist views’ and suggest the word ‘standards’ instead. ;-) Alright. I concede ;) > But seriously: the code reviews? Most Free software projects don't > do

Re: none

Pjotr Prins writes: > On Thu, Jul 21, 2016 at 02:51:38PM +0200, Ludovic Courtès wrote: >> In >> , >> you already identified exactly what we were going to say. :-) >> >> Namely, why are p

Re: none

Hiya, Pjotr, On 2016-07-22 04:06, Pjotr Prins wrote: A provocation: because of purism GNU Guix takes an elitist approach. I've honestly never felt any elitism coming from the Guix project. Consistency, certainly. _Much_ more so than in most other free software projects I know. I find it helps

Re: none

On Fri, Jul 22, 2016 at 04:06:56AM +0200, Pjotr Prins wrote: > A provocation: because of purism GNU Guix takes an elitist approach. > > I am thinking that we need another project because it appears to be > impossible to combine low threshold with GNU Guix goals. > > How about Alt-Guix, a packagin

Re: none

On Fri, Jul 22, 2016 at 04:06:56AM +0200, Pjotr Prins wrote: > A provocation: because of purism GNU Guix takes an elitist approach. > > I am thinking that we need another project because it appears to be > impossible to combine low threshold with GNU Guix goals. > > How about Alt-Guix, a packagin

Re: none

A provocation: because of purism GNU Guix takes an elitist approach. I am thinking that we need another project because it appears to be impossible to combine low threshold with GNU Guix goals. How about Alt-Guix, a packaging effort without opinion. As long as a package builds it gets accepted. T

Re: none

On Thu, Jul 21, 2016 at 02:51:38PM +0200, Ludovic Courtès wrote: > In > , > you already identified exactly what we were going to say. :-) > > Namely, why are patches applied in a build pha

Re: none

Hi Pjotr, Pjotr Prins skribis: > From 5fd8f64794b27f59f6688177a7a9e532b5d57f01 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001 > Date: Tue, 19 Jul 2016 11:13:27 + > Subject: [PATCH] gnu: Add elixir. > To: guix-devel@gnu.org > From: Pjotr Prins > References: <578e47d0.i8ovns6khzhqzvnc%pjotr.publi...@thebird.nl> >

Re: none

On Thu, Mar 26, 2015 at 10:22:36PM +0100, Ludovic Courtès wrote: Tomáš Čech skribis: I haven't seen any further reaction for 12 days so I hope you don't mind that I resend it again. Reaction to what? Reaction to the first patch version. S_W pgp3fwHYtC80q.pgp Description: PGP signature

Re: none

Tomáš Čech skribis: > I haven't seen any further reaction for 12 days so I hope you don't mind that > I resend it again. Reaction to what? Ludo’.

Re: none

On Fri, Dec 05, 2014 at 09:35:42AM +0100, Tomas Cech wrote: At Fri, 05 Dec 2014 00:04:23 +0100, Ludovic Courtès wrote: Tomas Cech skribis: > I tried to install Guix as alternative OS to my Gentoo and openSUSE > installations to give a try. I tried unsupported scenario - > installation on LVM

Re: none

Tomas Cech skribis: > At Fri, 05 Dec 2014 00:04:23 +0100, [...] >> > 1] if you set device to partition (and not to disk) in your >> > grub-configuration like this: >> > >> > (bootloader (grub-configuration >> >(device "/dev/sda4"))) >> >> Why would you want to use a partition

Re: none

At Fri, 05 Dec 2014 00:04:23 +0100, Ludovic Courtès wrote: > > Tomas Cech skribis: > > > I tried to install Guix as alternative OS to my Gentoo and openSUSE > > installations to give a try. I tried unsupported scenario - > > installation on LVM volume and separate /boot partition until I was > >

Re: none

Tomas Cech skribis: > I tried to install Guix as alternative OS to my Gentoo and openSUSE > installations to give a try. I tried unsupported scenario - > installation on LVM volume and separate /boot partition until I was > told it is unsupported. Separate boot wasn't hard as I had to just > copy

Re: none

On Wed, Feb 12, 2014 at 09:30:53PM +0100, Ludovic Courtès wrote: > I think this is largely because the official PKG_CHECK_MODULES Autoconf > macro doesn’t fail by default when pkg-config is not found (which may or > may not be a good idea, depending on the package.) Then it is the authors' respons

Re: none

Andreas Enge skribis: > On Wed, Feb 12, 2014 at 06:36:13PM +0100, Ludovic Courtès wrote: >> It would be nice if GNUnet’s ‘configure’ script would check whether >> gnurl has HTTPS support. > > Concurred. Or maybe make pkg-config a mandatory input and stop when it > is not found. Ever so often I se

Re: none

On Wed, Feb 12, 2014 at 06:36:13PM +0100, Ludovic Courtès wrote: > It would be nice if GNUnet’s ‘configure’ script would check whether > gnurl has HTTPS support. Concurred. Or maybe make pkg-config a mandatory input and stop when it is not found. Ever so often I see a package that states "feature

Re: none

On 02/12/2014 06:36 PM, Ludovic Courtès wrote: > It would be nice if GNUnet’s ‘configure’ script would check whether > gnurl has HTTPS support. It now does. :-) Sree

Re: none

Sree Harsha Totakura skribis: > The reason why the transport tests are failing is that gnurl is not being > built with HTTPS protocol support and these tests expect gnurl to have those. > The HTTPS support was not built into gnurl because pkg-config was not > available as native inputs during con

Re: none

John Darrington skribis: > I don't object to the spending time of writing changelogs. I just think the > information that the GCS suggests is not helpful. It is not usefull to say > changed file foo.scm, because using git show that is obvious. There is even > a > perl script out in the wil

Re: none

On Wed, Feb 05, 2014 at 11:17:25AM -0500, Mark H Weaver wrote: l...@gnu.org (Ludovic Court??s) writes: > John Darrington skribis: > >> In my opinion the changelog conventions are achronistic, unintuitive, >> and bring benefit neither to developers nor users. >

Re: none

l...@gnu.org (Ludovic Courtès) writes: > John Darrington skribis: > >> In my opinion the changelog conventions are achronistic, unintuitive, >> and bring benefit neither to developers nor users. > > Well, opinions may vary. > > It benefits me when I review other people’s patches, because it helps

Re: none

John Darrington skribis: > In my opinion the changelog conventions are achronistic, unintuitive, > and bring benefit neither to developers nor users. Well, opinions may vary. It benefits me when I review other people’s patches, because it helps me understand the structure of the change. And it