From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Jan Nieuwenhuizen Subject: Re: [PATCH] Allow for incremental upgrade from guile-2.0 to guile-next. Date: Thu, 24 Mar 2016 18:02:55 +0100 Message-ID: <8760wbkdvk.fsf@drakenvlieg.flower> References: <87egb0khu5.fsf@drakenvlieg.flower> <87d1qknglk.fsf@igalia.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Return-path: Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([2001:4830:134:3::10]:38972) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1aj8fF-0004U8-Nc for guix-devel@gnu.org; Thu, 24 Mar 2016 13:03:18 -0400 Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1aj8fB-0007Wo-KT for guix-devel@gnu.org; Thu, 24 Mar 2016 13:03:17 -0400 In-Reply-To: <87d1qknglk.fsf@igalia.com> (Andy Wingo's message of "Thu, 24 Mar 2016 14:35:51 +0100") 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-bounces+gcggd-guix-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org To: Andy Wingo Cc: guix-devel@gnu.org Andy Wingo writes: >> Using Guile-2.0 and Guile-2.2 together is currently cumbersome, >> esp. on Guix > I would like to review and apply these first upstream. WDYT? Yes, I would prefer that too, thanks! Anything I can do to help here? > Of course if we are being too slow, doing it in Guix is fine too, but > it's less good than getting review upstream first. Yes, I was thinking that if having Guix packages available to test, even if not merged, that could help. I assumed Guix and Guile friendly enough to do the right thing either way. Greetings, Jan --=20 Jan Nieuwenhuizen | GNU LilyPond http://lilypond.org Freelance IT http://JoyofSource.com | Avatar=C2=AE http://AvatarAcademy.nl= =20=20