GNU bug report logs - #70456
Request for merging "core-updates" branch

Previous Next

To add a comment to this bug, you must first unarchive it, by sending
a message to control AT debbugs.gnu.org, with unarchive 70456 in the body.
You can then email your comments to 70456 AT debbugs.gnu.org in the normal way.

Toggle the display of automated, internal messages from the tracker.

Message #5 received at submit <at> debbugs.gnu.org (full text, mbox):

From: Steve George <steve <at> futurile.net>
To: bug-guix <at> gnu.org
Subject: Request for merging core-updates branch
Date: Thu, 18 Apr 2024 15:56:41 +0100

Let's see where we are with the branch currently.

Thanks,

Steve / Futurile

Message #10 received at 70456 <at> debbugs.gnu.org (full text, mbox):

From: Christopher Baines <mail <at> cbaines.net>
To: 70456 <at> debbugs.gnu.org, steve <at> futurile.net
Subject: Re: Request for merging "core-updates" branch
Date: Fri, 19 Apr 2024 15:42:59 +0100

[Message part 1 (text/plain, inline)]

Hey,

Thanks for raising this issue Steve, given the branch has been going for
around 9 months (since [1]) now, I think it's well overdue to start
looking at building and merging it.

1: https://lists.gnu.org/archive/html/guix-commits/2023-07/msg00332.html

I pushed a single commit plus a merge from master today, and that was
pretty difficult. There was plenty of conflicts, and I probably have
resolved some wrongly, and there's potentially some things that Git
didn't raise as conflicts but might have broken with merging in master.

I'm also really confused by what commits appear to be on the branch,
take 12b15585a75062f3fba09d82861c6fae9a7743b2 which appears to be one
core-updates, but it's a duplicate of
e2a7c227dea5b361e2ebdbba24b923d1922a79d0 which was pushed to
master. Same with this commit 28d14130953d868d4848540d9de8e1ae4a01a467,
which is different to f29f80c194d0c534a92354b2bc19022a9b70ecf8 on
master.

Putting aside the functional changes on core-updates, it's doesn't seem
good to merge these seemingly duplicate commits on to master. I'm not
sure how this happened though, or how to fix it.

Chris

[signature.asc (application/pgp-signature, inline)]

Message #13 received at 70456 <at> debbugs.gnu.org (full text, mbox):

From: Christopher Baines <mail <at> cbaines.net>
To: 70456 <at> debbugs.gnu.org
Cc: Maxim Cournoyer <maxim.cournoyer <at> gmail.com>, steve <at> futurile.net
Subject: Re: bug#70456: Request for merging "core-updates" branch
Date: Fri, 19 Apr 2024 18:00:22 +0100

[Message part 1 (text/plain, inline)]

Christopher Baines <mail <at> cbaines.net> writes:

> I'm also really confused by what commits appear to be on the branch,
> take 12b15585a75062f3fba09d82861c6fae9a7743b2 which appears to be one
> core-updates, but it's a duplicate of
> e2a7c227dea5b361e2ebdbba24b923d1922a79d0 which was pushed to
> master. Same with this commit 28d14130953d868d4848540d9de8e1ae4a01a467,
> which is different to f29f80c194d0c534a92354b2bc19022a9b70ecf8 on
> master.

I've worked out at least when these two werid commits turned up on
core-updates.

12b15585a7 is mentioned here:
  https://lists.gnu.org/archive/html/guix-commits/2023-09/msg00955.html

and 28d1413095 is mentioned here:
  https://lists.gnu.org/archive/html/guix-commits/2024-03/msg00381.html


With the changes last month in March, I was going to suggest deleting
the branch and then re-creating from f205179ed2 and trying to re-apply
the changes that should be on core-updates, while avoiding any
"duplicate" commits. However, I'm not even sure where to being with the
~5000 commits pushed in September, at least one of them is a duplicate
of a commit on master, but I'm not sure how many of the other ~5000 are.

For comparison, I did a merge of master in to core-updates today, and
this is what it shows up like on guix-commits:

  https://lists.gnu.org/archive/html/guix-commits/2024-04/msg01209.html

There are only two new revisions, the ed update I pushed, and the merge
commit, which is what a merge should look like as far as I'm aware.

[signature.asc (application/pgp-signature, inline)]

Message #16 received at 70456 <at> debbugs.gnu.org (full text, mbox):

From: Christopher Baines <mail <at> cbaines.net>
To: Ludovic Courtès <ludo <at> gnu.org>
Cc: Guix Devel <guix-devel <at> gnu.org>, Josselin Poiret <dev <at> jpoiret.xyz>,
 70456 <at> debbugs.gnu.org, Maxim Cournoyer <maxim.cournoyer <at> gmail.com>
Subject: Re: Status of ‘core-updates’
Date: Sat, 20 Apr 2024 12:14:33 +0100

[Message part 1 (text/plain, inline)]

Ludovic Courtès <ludo <at> gnu.org> writes:

> What’s the status of ‘core-updates’?  What are the areas where help is
> needed?
>
> I know a lot has happened since the last update¹, which is roughly when
> I dropped the ball due to other commitments, but I’m not sure where we
> are now.

I haven't really been following core-updates, but I have had a look
since there's a request to merge it now [1].

I'm really concerned by the commits on the branch though, assuming I'm
using Git right, there are 6351 commits on the branch:

  git log --pretty=oneline core-updates ^master | wc -l

Somehow, I think there's been a couple of pushes of commits to
core-updates that have partially duplicated lots of commits from master,
I put some more details in:

  https://issues.guix.gnu.org/70456#3

I think keeping the Git commit history clean and representative is
really important, so to me at least this means core-updates can't be
merged to master in it's current form, even if the changes overall from
these 6351 commits are reasonable.

I'm really not sure how to move forward though, I had a go at trying to
rebuild the branch without introducing the thousands of duplicate
commits and that produced a branch with 765 commits over master, which
still seems a lot, but a big improvement over 6351:

  https://git.cbaines.net/guix/log/?h=chris-core-updates-no-duplicates-attempt

That was really hard going though, as there's plenty of merge conflicts
along the way, and I'm pretty sure I solved some of them
incorrectly. The resulting branch also differs from core-updates.

Maybe someone with more time, care and attention could do a better job,
but it might be more worthwhile just starting fresh and rather than
trying to produce a like for like branch just without the thousands of
duplicate commits, effectively manually rebase the branch (without the
duplicate commits) on master and try to get the commits in to a usable
state.

Any ideas?

Thanks,

Chris

[signature.asc (application/pgp-signature, inline)]

Message #19 received at 70456 <at> debbugs.gnu.org (full text, mbox):

From: Maxim Cournoyer <maxim.cournoyer <at> gmail.com>
To: Christopher Baines <mail <at> cbaines.net>
Cc: 70456 <at> debbugs.gnu.org, steve <at> futurile.net
Subject: Re: bug#70456: Request for merging "core-updates" branch
Date: Sat, 20 Apr 2024 12:16:03 -0400

Hi,

Christopher Baines <mail <at> cbaines.net> writes:

> Christopher Baines <mail <at> cbaines.net> writes:
>
>> I'm also really confused by what commits appear to be on the branch,
>> take 12b15585a75062f3fba09d82861c6fae9a7743b2 which appears to be one
>> core-updates, but it's a duplicate of
>> e2a7c227dea5b361e2ebdbba24b923d1922a79d0 which was pushed to
>> master. Same with this commit 28d14130953d868d4848540d9de8e1ae4a01a467,
>> which is different to f29f80c194d0c534a92354b2bc19022a9b70ecf8 on
>> master.
>
> I've worked out at least when these two werid commits turned up on
> core-updates.
>
> 12b15585a7 is mentioned here:
>   https://lists.gnu.org/archive/html/guix-commits/2023-09/msg00955.html
>
> and 28d1413095 is mentioned here:
>   https://lists.gnu.org/archive/html/guix-commits/2024-03/msg00381.html
>
>
> With the changes last month in March, I was going to suggest deleting
> the branch and then re-creating from f205179ed2 and trying to re-apply
> the changes that should be on core-updates, while avoiding any
> "duplicate" commits. However, I'm not even sure where to being with the
> ~5000 commits pushed in September, at least one of them is a duplicate
> of a commit on master, but I'm not sure how many of the other ~5000 are.
>
> For comparison, I did a merge of master in to core-updates today, and
> this is what it shows up like on guix-commits:
>
>   https://lists.gnu.org/archive/html/guix-commits/2024-04/msg01209.html
>
> There are only two new revisions, the ed update I pushed, and the merge
> commit, which is what a merge should look like as far as I'm aware.

I think probably what happened is that in the middle of a merge of
master -> core-updates (which entails sometimes painful conflicts
resolution), a new commit pushed to core-updates, and to be able to push
the resulting local branch (including the thousands of commits from the
merge commit) got rebased on the remote core-updates.

Perhaps another merge commit appeared on the remote around the same
time, which would explain the duplicates.

While I agree it's messy to have 5000 of duplicated commits, I'm not
sure attempting to rewrite the branch, which has seen a lot of original
commits, is a good idea (it'd be easy to have some good commits fall
into cracks, leading to lost of work).

I'd rather we take this experience as a strong reminding that rebasing
merge commits should be avoided at all costs (git already issues a
warning, IIRC).  As you suggested, the next time a situation like this
happens (locally prepared merge commit with new commits made to the
remote branch), merging the remote into the local branch is probably a
nicer solution.

-- 
Thanks,
Maxim

Message #22 received at 70456 <at> debbugs.gnu.org (full text, mbox):

From: Christopher Baines <mail <at> cbaines.net>
To: Maxim Cournoyer <maxim.cournoyer <at> gmail.com>
Cc: 70456 <at> debbugs.gnu.org, steve <at> futurile.net
Subject: Re: bug#70456: Request for merging "core-updates" branch
Date: Sat, 20 Apr 2024 19:08:34 +0100

[Message part 1 (text/plain, inline)]

Maxim Cournoyer <maxim.cournoyer <at> gmail.com> writes:

> Hi,
>
> Christopher Baines <mail <at> cbaines.net> writes:
>
>> Christopher Baines <mail <at> cbaines.net> writes:
>>
>>> I'm also really confused by what commits appear to be on the branch,
>>> take 12b15585a75062f3fba09d82861c6fae9a7743b2 which appears to be one
>>> core-updates, but it's a duplicate of
>>> e2a7c227dea5b361e2ebdbba24b923d1922a79d0 which was pushed to
>>> master. Same with this commit 28d14130953d868d4848540d9de8e1ae4a01a467,
>>> which is different to f29f80c194d0c534a92354b2bc19022a9b70ecf8 on
>>> master.
>>
>> I've worked out at least when these two werid commits turned up on
>> core-updates.
>>
>> 12b15585a7 is mentioned here:
>>   https://lists.gnu.org/archive/html/guix-commits/2023-09/msg00955.html
>>
>> and 28d1413095 is mentioned here:
>>   https://lists.gnu.org/archive/html/guix-commits/2024-03/msg00381.html
>>
>>
>> With the changes last month in March, I was going to suggest deleting
>> the branch and then re-creating from f205179ed2 and trying to re-apply
>> the changes that should be on core-updates, while avoiding any
>> "duplicate" commits. However, I'm not even sure where to being with the
>> ~5000 commits pushed in September, at least one of them is a duplicate
>> of a commit on master, but I'm not sure how many of the other ~5000 are.
>>
>> For comparison, I did a merge of master in to core-updates today, and
>> this is what it shows up like on guix-commits:
>>
>>   https://lists.gnu.org/archive/html/guix-commits/2024-04/msg01209.html
>>
>> There are only two new revisions, the ed update I pushed, and the merge
>> commit, which is what a merge should look like as far as I'm aware.
>
> I think probably what happened is that in the middle of a merge of
> master -> core-updates (which entails sometimes painful conflicts
> resolution), a new commit pushed to core-updates, and to be able to push
> the resulting local branch (including the thousands of commits from the
> merge commit) got rebased on the remote core-updates.
>
> Perhaps another merge commit appeared on the remote around the same
> time, which would explain the duplicates.
>
> While I agree it's messy to have 5000 of duplicated commits, I'm not
> sure attempting to rewrite the branch, which has seen a lot of original
> commits, is a good idea (it'd be easy to have some good commits fall
> into cracks, leading to lost of work).

I think it's important to weigh up the cost and risks associated with
either merging these commits, or somehow avoiding doing so. I think the
potential impact is more than just a bit of messy Git history.

Assuming we merge core-updates without doing anything about these
duplicate commits, and taking the cwltool package as a semi-random
example, if you do:

  git log -p gnu/packages/bioinformatics.scm

You're going to see two commits for the update to 3.1.20240112164112,
that's maybe confusing, but not a big issue I guess since they look the
same, just different hashes.

But say you're looking at the Git history because you want that specific
version of cwltool and you're going to use guix time-machine or an
inferior looking at that revision. Well, it's a lucky dip. If you pick
the original master commit, you're in luck, you'll probably get
substitutes for cwltool. But if you pick the other seemingly identical
commit, you're effectively checking out core-updates as it was last
month and the chance of substitutes is much less likely. I also can't
really think how you'd work out which commit is best to use once
core-updates is merged? The easiest way would probably be to check the
signature, but that will only work most of the time.

This isn't a new issue, it's already problematic for substitute
availability to use intermediate commits (commits that weren't directly
pointed to by master). But there are over 1000 packages who's versions
are being changed on core-updates currently, or at least it looks like
this because of the duplicate commits, and if I'm correct about how
people are using the git history to find commits for specific versions
of packages, then having these duplicates in the Git history for master
forever more is going to catch people out for as long as those versions
remain relevant.

[signature.asc (application/pgp-signature, inline)]

Message #25 received at 70456 <at> debbugs.gnu.org (full text, mbox):

From: Maxim Cournoyer <maxim.cournoyer <at> gmail.com>
To: Christopher Baines <mail <at> cbaines.net>
Cc: Guix Devel <guix-devel <at> gnu.org>,
 Ludovic Courtès <ludo <at> gnu.org>,
 Josselin Poiret <dev <at> jpoiret.xyz>, 70456 <at> debbugs.gnu.org
Subject: Re: Status of ‘core-updates’
Date: Sat, 20 Apr 2024 17:15:07 -0400

Hi Christopher,

Christopher Baines <mail <at> cbaines.net> writes:

> Ludovic Courtès <ludo <at> gnu.org> writes:
>
>> What’s the status of ‘core-updates’?  What are the areas where help is
>> needed?
>>
>> I know a lot has happened since the last update¹, which is roughly when
>> I dropped the ball due to other commitments, but I’m not sure where we
>> are now.
>
> I haven't really been following core-updates, but I have had a look
> since there's a request to merge it now [1].
>
> I'm really concerned by the commits on the branch though, assuming I'm
> using Git right, there are 6351 commits on the branch:
>
>   git log --pretty=oneline core-updates ^master | wc -l
>
> Somehow, I think there's been a couple of pushes of commits to
> core-updates that have partially duplicated lots of commits from master,
> I put some more details in:
>
>   https://issues.guix.gnu.org/70456#3
>
> I think keeping the Git commit history clean and representative is
> really important, so to me at least this means core-updates can't be
> merged to master in it's current form, even if the changes overall from
> these 6351 commits are reasonable.
>
> I'm really not sure how to move forward though, I had a go at trying to
> rebuild the branch without introducing the thousands of duplicate
> commits and that produced a branch with 765 commits over master, which
> still seems a lot, but a big improvement over 6351:
>
>   https://git.cbaines.net/guix/log/?h=chris-core-updates-no-duplicates-attempt
>
> That was really hard going though, as there's plenty of merge conflicts
> along the way, and I'm pretty sure I solved some of them
> incorrectly. The resulting branch also differs from core-updates.

I also think Git commit history is important, but in this case I weigh
the value of removing ~5000 duplicated rust commits against the risks of
resolving merge conflicts wrong or forgetting commits upon attempting to
recreate the branch from scratch lower than the benefit.

> Maybe someone with more time, care and attention could do a better job,
> but it might be more worthwhile just starting fresh and rather than
> trying to produce a like for like branch just without the thousands of
> duplicate commits, effectively manually rebase the branch (without the
> duplicate commits) on master and try to get the commits in to a usable
> state.

Given the little attention core-updates is currently receiving, I doubt
someone is willing to put the effort to recreate the branch from scratch
to clean its git history; at least speaking for myself I'd rather spend
the little hack time I have to work on it toward getting it finalized.

I believe how these duplicates came to exist was probably two separate
master -> core-updates merge commits, with one of them ending up being
rebased on top of the other, probably so that it could be pushed.
Perhaps we could capture in our contribution guidelines that rebasing a
merge commit should never be done to keep the history clean, and that in
a situation where:

1. a merge has been prepared locally (with conflicts resolved and all)
2. a new commit has appeared on the remote branch

the solution should be to merge the remote branch into the local one
instead of rebasing the local one on the remote one (as is usually
done).  Disclaimer: I haven't actually tried this suggested approach,
which should be done before documenting it, if there's a consensus to do
so.

In other words, I suggest we document what *not* to do to avoid
repeating the same mistake in the future, and move on.

-- 
Thanks,
Maxim

Message #36 received at 70456 <at> debbugs.gnu.org (full text, mbox):

From: Maxim Cournoyer <maxim.cournoyer <at> gmail.com>
To: Christopher Baines <mail <at> cbaines.net>
Cc: 70456 <at> debbugs.gnu.org, steve <at> futurile.net
Subject: Re: bug#70456: Request for merging "core-updates" branch
Date: Mon, 22 Apr 2024 13:31:17 -0400

Hi Christopher,

Christopher Baines <mail <at> cbaines.net> writes:

[...]

> Assuming we merge core-updates without doing anything about these
> duplicate commits, and taking the cwltool package as a semi-random
> example, if you do:
>
>   git log -p gnu/packages/bioinformatics.scm

I trust the 'newest' (appearing first in 'git log --grep='cwltool:
Update') would yield the commit having substitutes?

If so, the inconvenience is somewhat mitigated, as long as you know to
use the newest of duplicated commits.

-- 
Thanks,
Maxim

Message #45 received at 70456 <at> debbugs.gnu.org (full text, mbox):

From: tumashu <tumashu <at> 163.com>
To: 70456 <at> debbugs.gnu.org
Subject: Request for merging "core-updates" branch
Date: Fri, 26 Apr 2024 22:44:26 +0800 (CST)

[Message part 1 (text/plain, inline)]

emacs has a script gitmerge.el, it can skip some commit when merge with different merge rule (ours), maybe can make life easier:


https://git.savannah.gnu.org/cgit/emacs.git/tree/admin/gitmerge.el


https://git.savannah.gnu.org/cgit/emacs.git/tree/admin/notes/git-workflow











--
发自我的网易邮箱手机智能版

[Message part 2 (text/html, inline)]

Message #48 received at 70456 <at> debbugs.gnu.org (full text, mbox):

From: Ludovic Courtès <ludo <at> gnu.org>
To: Christopher Baines <mail <at> cbaines.net>
Cc: Guix Devel <guix-devel <at> gnu.org>, Josselin Poiret <dev <at> jpoiret.xyz>,
 70456 <at> debbugs.gnu.org, Maxim Cournoyer <maxim.cournoyer <at> gmail.com>
Subject: Re: bug#70456: Request for merging "core-updates" branch
Date: Thu, 02 May 2024 09:53:14 +0200

Hi Chris and all,

Christopher Baines <mail <at> cbaines.net> skribis:

> I think keeping the Git commit history clean and representative is
> really important, so to me at least this means core-updates can't be
> merged to master in it's current form, even if the changes overall from
> these 6351 commits are reasonable.
>
> I'm really not sure how to move forward though, I had a go at trying to
> rebuild the branch without introducing the thousands of duplicate
> commits and that produced a branch with 765 commits over master, which
> still seems a lot, but a big improvement over 6351:
>
>   https://git.cbaines.net/guix/log/?h=chris-core-updates-no-duplicates-attempt
>
> That was really hard going though, as there's plenty of merge conflicts
> along the way, and I'm pretty sure I solved some of them
> incorrectly. The resulting branch also differs from core-updates.

Woow, impressive.  How did you go about finding which commits were
duplicates/cherry-picked from master?  Which commit did you start from?

Given everything you’ve explained, it seems to me it’s worth trying to
start from a clean branch like this.

I checked it out (commit da77ea23daa0bfa4a73290dff99b22d6825ff80b) to
get an idea of where we are and got this:

--8<---------------cut here---------------start------------->8---
make[2]: *** No rule to make target 'gnu/packages/patches/glib-networking-gnutls-binding.patch', needed by 'all-am'.
make[2]: *** No rule to make target 'gnu/packages/patches/librecad-support-for-boost-1.76.patch', needed by 'all-am'.
--8<---------------cut here---------------end--------------->8---

It stopped at:

--8<---------------cut here---------------start------------->8---
gnu/packages/sdl.scm:72:2: error: (package (name "sdl2") (version "2.30.1") (source (origin (method url-fetch) (uri (string-append "https://libsdl.org/release/SDL2-" version ".tar.gz")) (sha256 (base32 "0fj7gxc7rlzzrafnx9nmf7ws3paxy583fmx7bcbavi6gr3xmy881")))) (arguments (list #:tests? #f #:configure-flags (gexp (append (quote ("--disable-wayland-shared" "--enable-video-kmsdrm" "--disable-kmsdrm-shared")) (quote ("--disable-alsa-shared" "--disable-pulseaudio-shared" "--disable-x11-shared" "LDFLAGS=-lGL")))) #:make-flags (gexp (cons* (string-append "LDFLAGS=-Wl,-rpath," (ungexp (this-package-input "eudev")) "/lib" ",-rpath," (ungexp (this-package-input "vulkan-loader")) "/lib") (quote ("V=1")))))) (propagated-inputs (list libx11 libcap mesa)) (native-inputs (list pkg-config)) (inputs (list libxrandr glu alsa-lib pulseaudio dbus eudev glib ibus-minimal libxkbcommon libxcursor vulkan-loader wayland wayland-protocols)) (outputs (quote ("out" "debug"))) (synopsis "Cross platform game development library") (description "Simple DirectMedia Layer is a cross-platform development library designed to\nprovide low level access to audio, keyboard, mouse, joystick, and graphics\nhardware.") (home-page "https://libsdl.org/") (license license:bsd-3)): missing field initializers (build-system)
--8<---------------cut here---------------end--------------->8---

I guess these are merge conflicts that weren’t correctly resolved.

This branch rewrites the entire ‘core-updates’ history.  What about
rewriting starting from the first series of “duplicate” commits?  That
should solve the immediate issue while keeping the “known good” history?

Thanks,
Ludo’.

Message #51 received at 70456 <at> debbugs.gnu.org (full text, mbox):

From: Christopher Baines <mail <at> cbaines.net>
To: control <at> debbugs.gnu.org
Cc: 70766 <at> debbugs.gnu.org, 70456 <at> debbugs.gnu.org
Subject: Process gnome-team before core-updates
Date: Wed, 08 May 2024 13:03:29 +0100

[Message part 1 (text/plain, inline)]

block 70456 by 70766
thanks

I think being able to merge core-updates is still a few weeks away, so I
think there's time to build and merge gnome-team without delaying
core-updates.

If it does become a problem, we can always switch approach and wait
until after core-updates is merged to look at gnome-team.

[signature.asc (application/pgp-signature, inline)]

Message #56 received at 70456 <at> debbugs.gnu.org (full text, mbox):

From: Efraim Flashner <efraim <at> flashner.co.il>
To: Christopher Baines <mail <at> cbaines.net>
Cc: guix-devel <at> gnu.org, 70456 <at> debbugs.gnu.org
Subject: Re: branch core-updates updated (c8c6883398 -> 0e06c9697a)
Date: Sun, 9 Jun 2024 12:54:27 +0300

[Message part 1 (text/plain, inline)]

On Sun, Jun 09, 2024 at 10:46:10AM +0100, Christopher Baines wrote:
> guix-commits <at> gnu.org writes:
> 
> > efraim pushed a change to branch core-updates
> > in repository guix.
> >
> >     from c8c6883398 gnu: dico: Add libxcrypt dependency.
> >      new 9804f8c149 gnu: coeurl: Update to 0.3.1.
> >      new 51c7b6d76f gnu: font-gnu-freefont: Build with newer fontforge.
> >      new 0e06c9697a gnu: Remove fontforge-20190801.
> >
> > The 3 revisions listed above as "new" are entirely new to this
> > repository and will be described in separate emails.  The revisions
> > listed as "add" were already present in the repository and have only
> > been added to this reference.
> 
> These changes confused me as I was looking at the trying to work out why
> they needed to be pushed to core-updates. Eventually I figured out that
> Git is right, these commits are entirely new, but they duplicate
> existing commits already pushed to master (e.g. 0e06c9697a is a
> duplicate of 3d5f4b2d7dda).
> 
> I know the new guidance says to "Avoid merging master in to the branch",
> but one of the reasons for that is to avoid situations just like this
> where merges are done incorrectly and commits are duplicated between
> branches.
> 
> To fix this, I think we should rebase core-updates on master and drop
> these commits.

I wasn't aware I was "doing it wrong" with this, I saw that coeurl 0.3.0
failed on core-updates but a bump to 0.3.1 fixed the build, and it could
go to master also. Similar story with working to remove
fontforge-20190801 which no longer built on core-updates. I figured that
applying the patch to both branches would make it easier to merge master
into core-updates since there would be less drift between the two.

What is the correct way to apply a patch to multiple branches?

-- 
Efraim Flashner   <efraim <at> flashner.co.il>   רנשלפ םירפא
GPG key = A28B F40C 3E55 1372 662D  14F7 41AA E7DC CA3D 8351
Confidentiality cannot be guaranteed on emails sent or received unencrypted

[signature.asc (application/pgp-signature, inline)]

Message #59 received at 70456 <at> debbugs.gnu.org (full text, mbox):

From: Christopher Baines <mail <at> cbaines.net>
To: guix-devel <at> gnu.org, Efraim Flashner <efraim <at> flashner.co.il>,
 70456 <at> debbugs.gnu.org
Subject: Re: branch core-updates updated (c8c6883398 -> 0e06c9697a)
Date: Sun, 09 Jun 2024 10:46:10 +0100

[Message part 1 (text/plain, inline)]

guix-commits <at> gnu.org writes:

> efraim pushed a change to branch core-updates
> in repository guix.
>
>     from c8c6883398 gnu: dico: Add libxcrypt dependency.
>      new 9804f8c149 gnu: coeurl: Update to 0.3.1.
>      new 51c7b6d76f gnu: font-gnu-freefont: Build with newer fontforge.
>      new 0e06c9697a gnu: Remove fontforge-20190801.
>
> The 3 revisions listed above as "new" are entirely new to this
> repository and will be described in separate emails.  The revisions
> listed as "add" were already present in the repository and have only
> been added to this reference.

These changes confused me as I was looking at the trying to work out why
they needed to be pushed to core-updates. Eventually I figured out that
Git is right, these commits are entirely new, but they duplicate
existing commits already pushed to master (e.g. 0e06c9697a is a
duplicate of 3d5f4b2d7dda).

I know the new guidance says to "Avoid merging master in to the branch",
but one of the reasons for that is to avoid situations just like this
where merges are done incorrectly and commits are duplicated between
branches.

To fix this, I think we should rebase core-updates on master and drop
these commits.

[signature.asc (application/pgp-signature, inline)]

Message #62 received at 70456 <at> debbugs.gnu.org (full text, mbox):

From: Christopher Baines <mail <at> cbaines.net>
To: guix-devel <at> gnu.org, efraim <at> flashner.co.il
Cc: 70456 <at> debbugs.gnu.org
Subject: Re: branch core-updates updated (c8c6883398 -> 0e06c9697a)
Date: Sun, 09 Jun 2024 11:20:53 +0100

[Message part 1 (text/plain, inline)]

Efraim Flashner <efraim <at> flashner.co.il> writes:

> On Sun, Jun 09, 2024 at 10:46:10AM +0100, Christopher Baines wrote:
>> guix-commits <at> gnu.org writes:
>> 
>> > efraim pushed a change to branch core-updates
>> > in repository guix.
>> >
>> >     from c8c6883398 gnu: dico: Add libxcrypt dependency.
>> >      new 9804f8c149 gnu: coeurl: Update to 0.3.1.
>> >      new 51c7b6d76f gnu: font-gnu-freefont: Build with newer fontforge.
>> >      new 0e06c9697a gnu: Remove fontforge-20190801.
>> >
>> > The 3 revisions listed above as "new" are entirely new to this
>> > repository and will be described in separate emails.  The revisions
>> > listed as "add" were already present in the repository and have only
>> > been added to this reference.
>> 
>> These changes confused me as I was looking at the trying to work out why
>> they needed to be pushed to core-updates. Eventually I figured out that
>> Git is right, these commits are entirely new, but they duplicate
>> existing commits already pushed to master (e.g. 0e06c9697a is a
>> duplicate of 3d5f4b2d7dda).
>> 
>> I know the new guidance says to "Avoid merging master in to the branch",
>> but one of the reasons for that is to avoid situations just like this
>> where merges are done incorrectly and commits are duplicated between
>> branches.
>> 
>> To fix this, I think we should rebase core-updates on master and drop
>> these commits.
>
> I wasn't aware I was "doing it wrong" with this, I saw that coeurl 0.3.0
> failed on core-updates but a bump to 0.3.1 fixed the build, and it could
> go to master also. Similar story with working to remove
> fontforge-20190801 which no longer built on core-updates. I figured that
> applying the patch to both branches would make it easier to merge master
> into core-updates since there would be less drift between the two.

You're right regarding drift, but unfortunately I think this duplication
of commits creates merge conflicts, or at least makes them much more
likely.

> What is the correct way to apply a patch to multiple branches?

I'd frame the problem differently, we don't want multiple branches, we
want everything on master. Unfortunately for some changes that is hard
to test and creates too much churn, so for those changes they go to a
branch where they can be built and tested prior to pushing/merging them
to master.

To avoid changes happening on a topic branch and master, I think it's
important that any change that can be made on master, is made on
master. That should avoid the problem where someone else comes along and
doesn't realise a change has been made on core-updates, and duplicates
that on master. In this instance, you pushed the changes to master,
which is great.

I realise it does require more up front effort, but if you see a failing
build on a topic branch that's fixed by some change on master, the topic
branch should be rebased to include those changes. Providing it's done
correctly, merging should be fine as well, but the docs now say to avoid
that and prefer rebasing (mostly because of how merging has introduced
duplicate commits in to core-updates)

This rebasing or merging will minimise the drift between the two
branches as well, while avoiding Git conflicts and commit duplication.

So I don't think we want to be applying patches to multiple branches. If
it can be applied to master, it should be applied there, then all the
branches should be rebased to include it.

Does that make sense? This isn't really a "doing it wrong" thing, more
that we need to try and optimise the process for managing branches. I
haven't got a concise definition of what we're trying to optimise for,
but in this instance we want to avoid Git issues like merge conflicts
and avoid duplication and complexity by making changes that can be made
on master, just on master.

[signature.asc (application/pgp-signature, inline)]

Message #65 received at 70456 <at> debbugs.gnu.org (full text, mbox):

From: Christopher Baines <mail <at> cbaines.net>
To: 70456 <at> debbugs.gnu.org
Subject: Re: branch core-updates updated (c8c6883398 -> 0e06c9697a)
Date: Sun, 09 Jun 2024 12:34:00 +0100

[Message part 1 (text/plain, inline)]

Christopher Baines <mail <at> cbaines.net> writes:

> Efraim Flashner <efraim <at> flashner.co.il> writes:
>
>> On Sun, Jun 09, 2024 at 10:46:10AM +0100, Christopher Baines wrote:
>>> guix-commits <at> gnu.org writes:
>>> 
>>> > efraim pushed a change to branch core-updates
>>> > in repository guix.
>>> >
>>> >     from c8c6883398 gnu: dico: Add libxcrypt dependency.
>>> >      new 9804f8c149 gnu: coeurl: Update to 0.3.1.
>>> >      new 51c7b6d76f gnu: font-gnu-freefont: Build with newer fontforge.
>>> >      new 0e06c9697a gnu: Remove fontforge-20190801.
>>> >
>>> > The 3 revisions listed above as "new" are entirely new to this
>>> > repository and will be described in separate emails.  The revisions
>>> > listed as "add" were already present in the repository and have only
>>> > been added to this reference.
>>> 
>>> These changes confused me as I was looking at the trying to work out why
>>> they needed to be pushed to core-updates. Eventually I figured out that
>>> Git is right, these commits are entirely new, but they duplicate
>>> existing commits already pushed to master (e.g. 0e06c9697a is a
>>> duplicate of 3d5f4b2d7dda).
>>> 
>>> I know the new guidance says to "Avoid merging master in to the branch",
>>> but one of the reasons for that is to avoid situations just like this
>>> where merges are done incorrectly and commits are duplicated between
>>> branches.
>>> 
>>> To fix this, I think we should rebase core-updates on master and drop
>>> these commits.

I've gone ahead and done this now.

[signature.asc (application/pgp-signature, inline)]

Message #68 received at 70456 <at> debbugs.gnu.org (full text, mbox):

From: Lars-Dominik Braun <lars <at> 6xq.net>
To: Steve George <steve <at> futurile.net>
Cc: ludo <at> gnu.org, mail <at> cbaines.net, 70456 <at> debbugs.gnu.org,
 maxim.cournoyer <at> gmail.com, efraim <at> flashner.co.il
Subject: Re: Request for merging core-updates branch
Date: Fri, 14 Jun 2024 08:30:54 +0200

Hi,

it seems the core-updates branch is first in the merge-queue. haskell-team
was successfully built by the CI and is ready to be merged. Since there
does not seem to be an ETA for core-updates, can I skip the queue and
go ahead with merging haskell-team?

Lars

Message #71 received at 70456 <at> debbugs.gnu.org (full text, mbox):

From: Guillaume Le Vaillant <glv <at> posteo.net>
To: Lars-Dominik Braun <lars <at> 6xq.net>
Cc: Steve George <steve <at> futurile.net>, maxim.cournoyer <at> gmail.com, ludo <at> gnu.org,
 mail <at> cbaines.net, efraim <at> flashner.co.il, 70456 <at> debbugs.gnu.org
Subject: Re: bug#70456: Request for merging core-updates branch
Date: Fri, 14 Jun 2024 07:55:14 +0000

[Message part 1 (text/plain, inline)]

Lars-Dominik Braun <lars <at> 6xq.net> skribis:

> Hi,
>
> it seems the core-updates branch is first in the merge-queue. haskell-team
> was successfully built by the CI and is ready to be merged. Since there
> does not seem to be an ETA for core-updates, can I skip the queue and
> go ahead with merging haskell-team?
>
> Lars

Hi.
The lisp-team branch is also in a good shape and ready to be merged.

[signature.asc (application/pgp-signature, inline)]

Message #74 received at 70456 <at> debbugs.gnu.org (full text, mbox):

From: Maxim Cournoyer <maxim.cournoyer <at> gmail.com>
To: Guillaume Le Vaillant <glv <at> posteo.net>
Cc: Steve George <steve <at> futurile.net>, ludo <at> gnu.org, mail <at> cbaines.net,
 Lars-Dominik Braun <lars <at> 6xq.net>, efraim <at> flashner.co.il,
 70456 <at> debbugs.gnu.org
Subject: Re: bug#70456: Request for merging core-updates branch
Date: Mon, 17 Jun 2024 15:53:26 -0400

Hi,

Guillaume Le Vaillant <glv <at> posteo.net> writes:

> Lars-Dominik Braun <lars <at> 6xq.net> skribis:
>
>> Hi,
>>
>> it seems the core-updates branch is first in the merge-queue. haskell-team
>> was successfully built by the CI and is ready to be merged. Since there
>> does not seem to be an ETA for core-updates, can I skip the queue and
>> go ahead with merging haskell-team?
>>
>> Lars
>
> Hi.
> The lisp-team branch is also in a good shape and ready to be merged.

I think it's fine to merge these first; perhaps the core-updates merge
request should be removed if it was preposterous (usually we issue the
merge request when we are confident the branch is ready to me merged).

-- 
Thanks,
Maxim

Message #77 received at 70456 <at> debbugs.gnu.org (full text, mbox):

From: Guillaume Le Vaillant <glv <at> posteo.net>
To: Maxim Cournoyer <maxim.cournoyer <at> gmail.com>
Cc: Steve George <steve <at> futurile.net>, ludo <at> gnu.org, mail <at> cbaines.net,
 Lars-Dominik Braun <lars <at> 6xq.net>, efraim <at> flashner.co.il,
 70456 <at> debbugs.gnu.org
Subject: Re: bug#70456: Request for merging core-updates branch
Date: Mon, 17 Jun 2024 20:19:45 +0000

[Message part 1 (text/plain, inline)]

Maxim Cournoyer <maxim.cournoyer <at> gmail.com> skribis:

> Hi,
>
> Guillaume Le Vaillant <glv <at> posteo.net> writes:
>
>> Lars-Dominik Braun <lars <at> 6xq.net> skribis:
>>
>>> Hi,
>>>
>>> it seems the core-updates branch is first in the merge-queue. haskell-team
>>> was successfully built by the CI and is ready to be merged. Since there
>>> does not seem to be an ETA for core-updates, can I skip the queue and
>>> go ahead with merging haskell-team?
>>>
>>> Lars
>>
>> Hi.
>> The lisp-team branch is also in a good shape and ready to be merged.
>
> I think it's fine to merge these first; perhaps the core-updates merge
> request should be removed if it was preposterous (usually we issue the
> merge request when we are confident the branch is ready to me merged).

Hi.

It might be more logical to have two steps. First a "work started on
xyz-team branch" message to indicate to the QA to make the stats for
this branch, and then the "request for merging xyz-team branch" message
to put the branch in the merge queue.

I'll try to merge the lisp-team branch tomorrow (UTC+2 timezone).

[signature.asc (application/pgp-signature, inline)]

Message #80 received at 70456 <at> debbugs.gnu.org (full text, mbox):

From: 宋文武 <iyzsong <at> envs.net>
To: 70456 <at> debbugs.gnu.org
Subject: core-updates failed package: time
Date: Tue, 18 Jun 2024 10:14:13 +0800

time-1.9 fail its test on core-updates:
https://ci.guix.gnu.org/build/4587082/log/raw

time(1) failed to detect 5MB allcoation.
  mem-baseline(kb): 768
  mem-5MB(kb):      5720
  delta(kb):        4952
FAIL tests/time-max-rss.sh (exit status: 1)

delta is 4952, but it expect 5000-6000.

No idea what's the reason, maybe skip it?

Message #83 received at 70456 <at> debbugs.gnu.org (full text, mbox):

From: 宋文武 <iyzsong <at> envs.net>
To: 70456 <at> debbugs.gnu.org
Subject: core-updates failed package: libfaketime for i686-linux
Date: Tue, 18 Jun 2024 15:49:49 +0800

宋文武 <iyzsong <at> envs.net> writes:

libfaketime (dependency of nss, poppler, cairo) failed for i686-linux

https://ci.guix.gnu.org/build/4555668/log/raw


out=1717606732 (secs since Epoch) expected=1 - bad
out=1717606732 (secs since Epoch) expected=2 - bad
out=1717606732 (secs since Epoch) expected=4 - bad


that mean FAKETIME=1 date doesn't report 1, but 1717606732.
I think that due to libfaketime doesn't work with _TIME_BITS=64 on 32bit
systems.  Maybe this issue
https://github.com/wolfcw/libfaketime/issues/418.

I have no idea how to fix this, help need!

Message #86 received at 70456 <at> debbugs.gnu.org (full text, mbox):

From: Maxim Cournoyer <maxim.cournoyer <at> gmail.com>
To: Guillaume Le Vaillant <glv <at> posteo.net>
Cc: Steve George <steve <at> futurile.net>, ludo <at> gnu.org, mail <at> cbaines.net,
 Lars-Dominik Braun <lars <at> 6xq.net>, efraim <at> flashner.co.il,
 70456 <at> debbugs.gnu.org
Subject: Re: bug#70456: Request for merging core-updates branch
Date: Tue, 18 Jun 2024 08:15:45 -0400

Hi,

Guillaume Le Vaillant <glv <at> posteo.net> writes:

> Maxim Cournoyer <maxim.cournoyer <at> gmail.com> skribis:
>
>> Hi,
>>
>> Guillaume Le Vaillant <glv <at> posteo.net> writes:
>>
>>> Lars-Dominik Braun <lars <at> 6xq.net> skribis:
>>>
>>>> Hi,
>>>>
>>>> it seems the core-updates branch is first in the merge-queue. haskell-team
>>>> was successfully built by the CI and is ready to be merged. Since there
>>>> does not seem to be an ETA for core-updates, can I skip the queue and
>>>> go ahead with merging haskell-team?
>>>>
>>>> Lars
>>>
>>> Hi.
>>> The lisp-team branch is also in a good shape and ready to be merged.
>>
>> I think it's fine to merge these first; perhaps the core-updates merge
>> request should be removed if it was preposterous (usually we issue the
>> merge request when we are confident the branch is ready to me merged).
>
> Hi.
>
> It might be more logical to have two steps. First a "work started on
> xyz-team branch" message to indicate to the QA to make the stats for
> this branch, and then the "request for merging xyz-team branch" message
> to put the branch in the merge queue.

That'd be neat.  Some other flow/UI idea:

From the QA interface, have a "Request to build" button action attached
to a branch.

If the branch could be built successfully (with all checks OK), enable a
"Request to merge" button, that could send an email with the patches to
review to guix-patches.

-- 
Thanks,
Maxim

Message #89 received at 70456 <at> debbugs.gnu.org (full text, mbox):

From: Christopher Baines <mail <at> cbaines.net>
To: Maxim Cournoyer <maxim.cournoyer <at> gmail.com>
Cc: Steve George <steve <at> futurile.net>, Guillaume Le Vaillant <glv <at> posteo.net>,
 ludo <at> gnu.org, Lars-Dominik Braun <lars <at> 6xq.net>, efraim <at> flashner.co.il,
 70456 <at> debbugs.gnu.org
Subject: Re: bug#70456: Request for merging core-updates branch
Date: Fri, 21 Jun 2024 16:13:53 +0100

[Message part 1 (text/plain, inline)]

Maxim Cournoyer <maxim.cournoyer <at> gmail.com> writes:

> Guillaume Le Vaillant <glv <at> posteo.net> writes:
>
>> Lars-Dominik Braun <lars <at> 6xq.net> skribis:
>>
>>> Hi,
>>>
>>> it seems the core-updates branch is first in the merge-queue. haskell-team
>>> was successfully built by the CI and is ready to be merged. Since there
>>> does not seem to be an ETA for core-updates, can I skip the queue and
>>> go ahead with merging haskell-team?
>>>
>>> Lars
>>
>> Hi.
>> The lisp-team branch is also in a good shape and ready to be merged.
>
> I think it's fine to merge these first; perhaps the core-updates merge
> request should be removed if it was preposterous (usually we issue the
> merge request when we are confident the branch is ready to me merged).

Can you clarify what you mean by preposterous?

While the guidance did previously say to raise an issue when you wanted
to merge the branch, it's now changed to when you create the branch in
an attempt to avoid this of situation of long running stateful branches
in the future.

I fail to see how merging core-updates is going to get easier if we
wait.

[signature.asc (application/pgp-signature, inline)]

Message #92 received at 70456 <at> debbugs.gnu.org (full text, mbox):

From: Christopher Baines <mail <at> cbaines.net>
To: 70456 <at> debbugs.gnu.org
Subject: Re: Request for merging "core-updates" branch
Date: Sat, 22 Jun 2024 20:33:59 +0100

[Message part 1 (text/plain, inline)]

Hey,

I've spent a bunch of time in the last few days trying to see if I can
get the bordeaux build farm moving on core-updates and I think things
are moving at pace now.

Builds are happening for 6 systems, with the only major omission being
i586-gnu, I think there are existing issues with the guix-daemon in the
childhurds not being able to stop builds which timeout, which leads to
them getting stuck on builds. I'm not sure if there's an open bug about
this.

The other major issue that comes up every time there's a core-updates
round is that the x86_64-linux bootstrap doesn't seem to build on btrfs,
or at least milano-guix-1 which uses btrfs. I have to work around this
by scheduling builds with --tag=filesystem=ext4 to have them run on
other machines. There isn't a good bug for this, but #53416 probably
applies.

data.qa.guix.gnu.org seemed to be timing out more than usual for both
patches and branches, so I've made some changes there and in the
qa-frontpage to mitigate that. The core-updates page should now always
load, although something needs adding so you can see how up to date the
data is.

1: https://qa.guix.gnu.org/branch/core-updates

Andreas has also been getting some additional x86_64-linux/i686-linux
agents up and running which should help to speed up the build
throughput.

Chris

[signature.asc (application/pgp-signature, inline)]

Message #95 received at 70456 <at> debbugs.gnu.org (full text, mbox):

From: Maxim Cournoyer <maxim.cournoyer <at> gmail.com>
To: Christopher Baines <mail <at> cbaines.net>
Cc: Steve George <steve <at> futurile.net>, Guillaume Le Vaillant <glv <at> posteo.net>,
 ludo <at> gnu.org, Lars-Dominik Braun <lars <at> 6xq.net>, efraim <at> flashner.co.il,
 70456 <at> debbugs.gnu.org
Subject: Re: bug#70456: Request for merging core-updates branch
Date: Mon, 24 Jun 2024 00:07:16 -0400

Hi Christopher,

Christopher Baines <mail <at> cbaines.net> writes:

> Maxim Cournoyer <maxim.cournoyer <at> gmail.com> writes:
>
>> Guillaume Le Vaillant <glv <at> posteo.net> writes:
>>
>>> Lars-Dominik Braun <lars <at> 6xq.net> skribis:
>>>
>>>> Hi,
>>>>
>>>> it seems the core-updates branch is first in the merge-queue. haskell-team
>>>> was successfully built by the CI and is ready to be merged. Since there
>>>> does not seem to be an ETA for core-updates, can I skip the queue and
>>>> go ahead with merging haskell-team?
>>>>
>>>> Lars
>>>
>>> Hi.
>>> The lisp-team branch is also in a good shape and ready to be merged.
>>
>> I think it's fine to merge these first; perhaps the core-updates merge
>> request should be removed if it was preposterous (usually we issue the
>> merge request when we are confident the branch is ready to me merged).
>
> Can you clarify what you mean by preposterous?
>
> While the guidance did previously say to raise an issue when you wanted
> to merge the branch, it's now changed to when you create the branch in
> an attempt to avoid this of situation of long running stateful branches
> in the future.

OK, sorry, I somehow had forgotten/missed that.  Some branches might
require more work post merge-request than was expected; it's hard to say
without trying it first.

> I fail to see how merging core-updates is going to get easier if we
> wait.

It's not.  But while things are still being worked on, if other branches
are done and ready, they shouldn't be in held in limbo.

-- 
Thanks,
Maxim

Message #98 received at 70456 <at> debbugs.gnu.org (full text, mbox):

From: Christopher Baines <mail <at> cbaines.net>
To: 70456 <at> debbugs.gnu.org
Subject: Re: Request for merging "core-updates" branch
Date: Thu, 27 Jun 2024 14:12:06 +0100

[Message part 1 (text/plain, inline)]

Christopher Baines <mail <at> cbaines.net> writes:

> I've spent a bunch of time in the last few days trying to see if I can
> get the bordeaux build farm moving on core-updates and I think things
> are moving at pace now.

Following on from this, builds have mostly paused for the last few days
as many changes have landed on the master branch.

There's a few impactful changes in this range [1] (subversion,
git-minimal, qt-build-system, ...) but also going back just over a week
there were the lisp-team changes pushed to master (ecl and sbcl updates)
which I don't think are in core-updates yet.

1: https://git.savannah.gnu.org/cgit/guix.git/log/?qt=range&q=c5fc11488c..831001c581

It's hard to tell how these changes will interact with those on
core-updates but I think we need to just rebase the branch and find out.

I've now done that and pushed it as core-updates-next. This is mostly to
allow others to make changes to core-updates-next today, before swapping
it out with core-updates tomorrow.

This core-updates-next also includes a few additional patches, plus the
contents of tex-team, since that was next in the queue, and the changes
shouldn't be risky.

Some good progress was made with building core-updates, so I'm hoping
that with this next iteration (and hopefully a quiet period on the
master branch) we can get to the point where we can merge.

[signature.asc (application/pgp-signature, inline)]

Message #101 received at 70456 <at> debbugs.gnu.org (full text, mbox):

From: Christopher Baines <mail <at> cbaines.net>
To: 70456 <at> debbugs.gnu.org
Subject: Re: Request for merging "core-updates" branch
Date: Sat, 10 Aug 2024 08:27:23 +0100

[Message part 1 (text/plain, inline)]

Christopher Baines <mail <at> cbaines.net> writes:

> Christopher Baines <mail <at> cbaines.net> writes:
>
>> I've spent a bunch of time in the last few days trying to see if I can
>> get the bordeaux build farm moving on core-updates and I think things
>> are moving at pace now.

...

> Some good progress was made with building core-updates, so I'm hoping
> that with this next iteration (and hopefully a quiet period on the
> master branch) we can get to the point where we can merge.

Substitute availability has been progressing well for core-updates, with
the biggest fix being the switch to datefudge for the nss tests on 32bit
systems.

Unfortunately it's been a while since core-updates has been rebased, and
the master branch hasn't been quiet so even though substitute
availability looks good, core-updates is missing ~2500 commits from
master, including some impactful changes and not representative of the
state of master if it was merged.

I did try rebasing around 3 weeks ago, but I got stuck on some rust
related conflicts and gave up. I've had another go now though and I've
managed to rebase, although I did remove some of the rust changes (I've
sent them as patches here [1].

1: https://issues.guix.gnu.org/72553

Hopefully the builds won't take more than a week or two to happen.

[signature.asc (application/pgp-signature, inline)]

Previous Next

GNU bug tracking system
Copyright (C) 1999 Darren O. Benham, 1997,2003 nCipher Corporation Ltd, 1994-97 Ian Jackson.