From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Leo Famulari Subject: Re: [PATCH 0/3] Expat and libxslt changes for core-updates Date: Sun, 12 Jun 2016 22:20:48 -0400 Message-ID: <20160613022048.GA21060@jasmine> References: <20160608101016.GA20565@debian-netbook> <20160609164317.GA5540@jasmine> <20160609231935.GA14894@jasmine> <87bn3919oa.fsf@gnu.org> <20160611004927.GA1242@jasmine> <87lh2ajgqa.fsf@gnu.org> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Return-path: Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([2001:4830:134:3::10]:59316) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1bCHUv-0006bS-SW for guix-devel@gnu.org; Sun, 12 Jun 2016 22:21:06 -0400 Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1bCHUs-0002o7-Mo for guix-devel@gnu.org; Sun, 12 Jun 2016 22:21:05 -0400 Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <87lh2ajgqa.fsf@gnu.org> List-Id: "Development of GNU Guix and the GNU System distribution." List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Errors-To: guix-devel-bounces+gcggd-guix-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Sender: "Guix-devel" To: Ludovic =?iso-8859-1?Q?Court=E8s?= Cc: guix-devel@gnu.org On Sun, Jun 12, 2016 at 10:26:53PM +0200, Ludovic Courtès wrote: > Leo Famulari skribis: > > > On Fri, Jun 10, 2016 at 02:59:49PM +0200, Ludovic Courtès wrote: > >> Leo Famulari skribis: > >> > The merge will probably be messy... > >> > >> We should leave it to you, to minimize breakage. > > > > Okay, should I do it today or is core-updates frozen? > > It’s OK if you do it today. :-) > > The branch is being built but it’s just the beginning. Okay, I've done it. I spent so much time thinking about this merge that I am confident it's correct, but I'm nervous because I can't feasibly build it as a test. `make` succeeded. > Sorry, I explained myself poorly. Here, we (1) grafted Expat in master, > (2) upgraded Expat in core-updates, and (3) only after that did we merge > master in core-updates, making the merge more troublesome, right? > > My question was whether we should swap (2) and (3). Yes, I think we should do (3) before (2), if we notice (1). Although (2) preceded (1) chronologically, in this case. (2) happened circa Mar 25 and (1) happened circa May 18, according to the dates on the commits. So, swapping (2) and (3) wouldn't have helped this case.