From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from mp1.migadu.com ([2001:41d0:403:58f0::]) (using TLSv1.3 with cipher TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 (256/256 bits)) by ms1.migadu.com with LMTPS id 0G8QMrcEJGZxdAEA62LTzQ:P1 (envelope-from ) for ; Sat, 20 Apr 2024 20:08:55 +0200 Received: from aspmx1.migadu.com ([2001:41d0:403:58f0::]) (using TLSv1.3 with cipher TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 (256/256 bits)) by mp1.migadu.com with LMTPS id 0G8QMrcEJGZxdAEA62LTzQ (envelope-from ) for ; Sat, 20 Apr 2024 20:08:55 +0200 X-Envelope-To: larch@yhetil.org Authentication-Results: aspmx1.migadu.com; dkim=none; dmarc=none; spf=pass (aspmx1.migadu.com: domain of "bug-guix-bounces+larch=yhetil.org@gnu.org" designates 209.51.188.17 as permitted sender) smtp.mailfrom="bug-guix-bounces+larch=yhetil.org@gnu.org" ARC-Message-Signature: i=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=yhetil.org; s=key1; t=1713636535; h=from:from:sender:sender:reply-to:subject:subject:date:date: message-id:message-id:to:to:cc:cc:mime-version:mime-version: content-type:content-type:resent-cc:resent-from:resent-sender: resent-message-id:in-reply-to:in-reply-to:references:references: list-id:list-help:list-unsubscribe:list-subscribe:list-post; bh=gh+j6UfSt+K/5+mzd+hzZQF6JrFp9VSfoa5eg+Vhias=; b=diSz9fYf/gqB2fFpM4eoLPzfe1BrNOO4vKiKEYLh2KFriryb9nZf25waICe8ulaF8afNej cd5843ss1m/xZe84S5PgD+mOVXkFFU5TEL3esi9JqyCAaoUT/wW3oSwd3ZHMlDKkMz4+CK pQ10SM29olzwMQxneEfSc9dS72PGuL/BJrDjl5v1pdea+hSRd62P9HIXQxQ2cEKrKB3nJQ /L/m9ljs1q9eONZ34nQHuGMxMF97Ljs2wjfjBZVzrM3szl8q4q/ddiX6/AccUshQDW+tUF U2amWU0AvzNVRg7btzray5zv+4Yli+N5iYUAU0aU5CrHzpfNQRp0TvUnRRYPZg== ARC-Authentication-Results: i=1; aspmx1.migadu.com; dkim=none; dmarc=none; spf=pass (aspmx1.migadu.com: domain of "bug-guix-bounces+larch=yhetil.org@gnu.org" designates 209.51.188.17 as permitted sender) smtp.mailfrom="bug-guix-bounces+larch=yhetil.org@gnu.org" ARC-Seal: i=1; s=key1; d=yhetil.org; t=1713636535; a=rsa-sha256; cv=none; b=IBFDGoUp6nHPFNZZkomSsSuamFzwFe2qr3ZedNJSJXcF3UYkqq9QUHYq9YjlJNpL6YJu4A apVR0xG/0BOU4xb84EiTWc3suzZ8fjwfgZ1hdR2pR0SBsA+W+S/0O6xbx+gR9KxtzzDefT yR/I67splgyX+6cDWokwFvmVs0msNM2V8BPLx/kxFjbvECUX18bve0wAf+petJaf6KVFP/ ePcKgOvzFJNGIM8mxzY5V4Z/WfP/KOvvMYkzp/O5qtfDarRAlELbsHacG/3f+SpX21jDml tzQA+xI8GeALIsWHzrEpjTqByEWfxw8Ze83q+H5xqQpgr8/AeuyvVMMLfRX32w== Received: from lists.gnu.org (lists.gnu.org [209.51.188.17]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by aspmx1.migadu.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 8694F60BC4 for ; Sat, 20 Apr 2024 20:08:55 +0200 (CEST) Received: from localhost ([::1] helo=lists1p.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1ryF8u-00059H-0U; Sat, 20 Apr 2024 14:08:52 -0400 Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([2001:470:142:3::10]) by lists.gnu.org with esmtps (TLS1.2:ECDHE_RSA_AES_256_GCM_SHA384:256) (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1ryF8s-000598-5R for bug-guix@gnu.org; Sat, 20 Apr 2024 14:08:50 -0400 Received: from debbugs.gnu.org ([2001:470:142:5::43]) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtps (TLS1.2:ECDHE_RSA_AES_128_GCM_SHA256:128) (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1ryF8r-0001Mm-TI for bug-guix@gnu.org; Sat, 20 Apr 2024 14:08:49 -0400 Received: from Debian-debbugs by debbugs.gnu.org with local (Exim 4.84_2) (envelope-from ) id 1ryF96-0005E0-6x for bug-guix@gnu.org; Sat, 20 Apr 2024 14:09:04 -0400 X-Loop: help-debbugs@gnu.org Subject: bug#70456: Request for merging "core-updates" branch Resent-From: Christopher Baines Original-Sender: "Debbugs-submit" Resent-CC: bug-guix@gnu.org Resent-Date: Sat, 20 Apr 2024 18:09:03 +0000 Resent-Message-ID: Resent-Sender: help-debbugs@gnu.org X-GNU-PR-Message: followup 70456 X-GNU-PR-Package: guix X-GNU-PR-Keywords: To: Maxim Cournoyer Cc: 70456@debbugs.gnu.org, steve@futurile.net Received: via spool by 70456-submit@debbugs.gnu.org id=B70456.171363653820030 (code B ref 70456); Sat, 20 Apr 2024 18:09:03 +0000 Received: (at 70456) by debbugs.gnu.org; 20 Apr 2024 18:08:58 +0000 Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1]:37469 helo=debbugs.gnu.org) by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.84_2) (envelope-from ) id 1ryF8y-0005Cq-OQ for submit@debbugs.gnu.org; Sat, 20 Apr 2024 14:08:58 -0400 Received: from mira.cbaines.net ([212.71.252.8]:43356) by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.84_2) (envelope-from ) id 1ryF8v-0005C8-HW for 70456@debbugs.gnu.org; Sat, 20 Apr 2024 14:08:54 -0400 Received: from localhost (unknown [212.132.255.10]) by mira.cbaines.net (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 4DCC827BBE2; Sat, 20 Apr 2024 19:08:37 +0100 (BST) Received: from felis (localhost.lan [127.0.0.1]) by localhost (OpenSMTPD) with ESMTP id 28502300; Sat, 20 Apr 2024 18:08:36 +0000 (UTC) From: Christopher Baines In-Reply-To: <87bk64j9h8.fsf@gmail.com> (Maxim Cournoyer's message of "Sat, 20 Apr 2024 12:16:03 -0400") References: <87il0d4dn0.fsf@cbaines.net> <877cgt47a1.fsf@cbaines.net> <87bk64j9h8.fsf@gmail.com> User-Agent: mu4e 1.12.2; emacs 29.3 Date: Sat, 20 Apr 2024 19:08:34 +0100 Message-ID: <87h6fv3o0t.fsf@cbaines.net> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/signed; boundary="=-=-="; micalg=pgp-sha512; protocol="application/pgp-signature" X-BeenThere: debbugs-submit@debbugs.gnu.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.18 Precedence: list X-BeenThere: bug-guix@gnu.org List-Id: Bug reports for GNU Guix List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Errors-To: bug-guix-bounces+larch=yhetil.org@gnu.org Sender: bug-guix-bounces+larch=yhetil.org@gnu.org X-Migadu-Flow: FLOW_IN X-Migadu-Country: US X-Migadu-Spam-Score: -8.48 X-Migadu-Scanner: mx11.migadu.com X-Spam-Score: -8.48 X-Migadu-Queue-Id: 8694F60BC4 X-TUID: QYH82TanqIxQ --=-=-= Content-Type: text/plain Maxim Cournoyer writes: > Hi, > > Christopher Baines writes: > >> Christopher Baines 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. --=-=-= Content-Type: application/pgp-signature; name="signature.asc" -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- iQKlBAEBCgCPFiEEPonu50WOcg2XVOCyXiijOwuE9XcFAmYkBKJfFIAAAAAALgAo aXNzdWVyLWZwckBub3RhdGlvbnMub3BlbnBncC5maWZ0aGhvcnNlbWFuLm5ldDNF ODlFRUU3NDU4RTcyMEQ5NzU0RTBCMjVFMjhBMzNCMEI4NEY1NzcRHG1haWxAY2Jh aW5lcy5uZXQACgkQXiijOwuE9XeyBBAAtzoraZGiN1S8oA+s7mUFZBlnAmOG6P73 D+jiHOwibqAzMQM8+gFe/1K+Aqfk/Dv7tRRRiDS7AKaqNwBwh9ZcYrRZcy6z2Pdk 7oxB4X7nVQleFr+ljwvuNp0YsvJh31OSUTPoVgo1HfOwnBnvugcwImx9gzjPdJ+R JFT5RHJJyHrtcFOYG45yk6K0NxqDu5ZTukwH8cYQTHFdctYMqBTq249BaME6tozT FIWQH6BGuNEVHNsW+8ReOLRyf394YsqBxy4VDGc3TuiGlNTAkWiIX6QdNaPBd0kM gN5gwNnI6ngukAXwgo/Mhf9iCqCyPnMNblpbSRic+IwsLXbQP6djU5enAo2s0xHs y3pyND8TkUB1XakgHtPWhNFFGoHzuklzV8RPIO1RAL0u6lvqyG2qZT11rsKOElD4 Jx9etuGnz+xM6IQivcwpxHwRJoKUf+z91sYbIP/8OOtF0MuW2jBL48ysRTrHxALn wBE+74wuolENicS6LfvFS7qvK96340Y9pVIUKqof1IGJPbIvRQNikx9uTZ+tDf6I QXn+S3HYQhxcgviyEbtDYkWSpbfMQ594trlhPmczGgaYUVlSniuBWxPAf41twF4G bX/JpUxjMR/qy0zY8fPoPg3eu+v4piMBUoIfsWDW1ryIDzGLVIqln6I42A3d5no8 bss9DuR15pM= =AnWa -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --=-=-=--