From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Marius Bakke Subject: Re: [PATCH] gnu: vim: Update to 8.0.0047. Date: Fri, 28 Oct 2016 20:57:14 +0100 Message-ID: <874m3wtffp.fsf@duckhunt.i-did-not-set--mail-host-address--so-tickle-me> References: <87y419zzs1.fsf@duckhunt.i-did-not-set--mail-host-address--so-tickle-me> <87insdf1ta.fsf@elephly.net> <87lgx8za3s.fsf@duckhunt.i-did-not-set--mail-host-address--so-tickle-me> <87shrgjt33.fsf@elephly.net> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/signed; boundary="=-=-="; micalg=pgp-sha512; protocol="application/pgp-signature" Return-path: Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([2001:4830:134:3::10]:50723) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1c0DHD-0005gv-QD for guix-devel@gnu.org; Fri, 28 Oct 2016 15:57:20 -0400 Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1c0DHA-0005nz-ON for guix-devel@gnu.org; Fri, 28 Oct 2016 15:57:19 -0400 Received: from out5-smtp.messagingengine.com ([66.111.4.29]:42266) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtps (TLS1.0:DHE_RSA_AES_256_CBC_SHA1:32) (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1c0DHA-0005ni-K1 for guix-devel@gnu.org; Fri, 28 Oct 2016 15:57:16 -0400 In-Reply-To: <87shrgjt33.fsf@elephly.net> 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: Ricardo Wurmus Cc: guix-devel@gnu.org --=-=-= Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Ricardo Wurmus writes: >>> Guix can handle downloading patches, so there=E2=80=99s really no need = for >>> switching in my opinion. =E2=80=9Cgnu/packages/bash.scm=E2=80=9D could= be used as a >>> reference for how to deal with a large number of patches. >> >> vim-7.4 ended at 2367 patches[0]. 8.0 is currently at 51 (four since >> yesterday!), whereas bash has 42, so they are not really comparable. I >> think vim would rarely be updated, if it required downloading and >> creating potentially hundreds of patch references at once. >> >> They are also not signed, though we could rely on the MD5SUMS file. >> >> With this information, do you still think a custom patch importer is >> better? I don't really mind either way, but someone needs to make it :) > > No, you convinced me :) Thanks for your patience! Thanks for questioning my oft-rushed conclusions! :) I updated vim in a9afb956b3232ccfb7deaf3feed02b60a12d65bf. --=-=-= Content-Type: application/pgp-signature; name="signature.asc" -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- iQEcBAEBCgAGBQJYE62aAAoJEKKgbfKjOlT6JTgH/076LNoGz4jhaaAwvsmuA0OQ HWIDeyXGlrLoGm2AttDeC9xHxBQfp+JSRORf6taxAQxrGhLpD72bW/5XVSyWzBjb CimMrUM4xyw5syLMy4JAwKlHC2thRsGdJvBvDNY2gAY7EzrzFv9eyJv73IKxenRY dMEUi/97iPV6Z9BjkOA9YYjV6G1Hpsq0EoE9pqZX5g2mOjtkDG8HiIMd/5gMk4G0 yLOCj1lnvqXoof9dcnAU0sH+l/qyAlVe4XCBqVExO4v2aJ/t4cSVHLD6O1seu8JK Vn5/0QkOkQIXBQfW4xsaGN+7KXwhJUDw66/pBA7H4evMwhHj+iz57uyjriMghu4= =p2OS -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --=-=-=--