From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Timothy Sample Subject: Re: Stackage LTS 14 Date: Fri, 01 Nov 2019 00:07:30 -0400 Message-ID: <87h83oz1bx.fsf@ngyro.com> References: <87mudt7h7a.fsf@ngyro.com> <87a79tj8mq.fsf@elephly.net> <87ftjjwdf7.fsf@devup.no> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Return-path: Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([2001:470:142:3::10]:45253) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1iQODq-0004nN-1n for guix-devel@gnu.org; Fri, 01 Nov 2019 00:07:39 -0400 Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1iQODo-0008P2-M0 for guix-devel@gnu.org; Fri, 01 Nov 2019 00:07:37 -0400 Received: from wout2-smtp.messagingengine.com ([64.147.123.25]:55485) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtps (TLS1.0:DHE_RSA_AES_256_CBC_SHA1:32) (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1iQODo-0008Gi-8D for guix-devel@gnu.org; Fri, 01 Nov 2019 00:07:36 -0400 In-Reply-To: <87ftjjwdf7.fsf@devup.no> (Marius Bakke's message of "Wed, 23 Oct 2019 19:59:40 +0200") 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: Marius Bakke Cc: guix-devel Hello, Marius Bakke writes: > Ricardo Wurmus writes: > >>> Ricardo, what do you think? Are we okay to take over >>> wip-haskell-updates? Does a mega commit make sense or do you think >>> that=E2=80=99s a bad idea? >> >> Yes, you can take over wip-haskell-updates. Great! I=E2=80=99ve pushed a new branch with updated Haskell packages. It= =E2=80=99s a little messy yet, but I want the build farm to help me find build problems before cleaning up too much. I updated all the packages using =E2=80=9Cguix refresh=E2=80=9D, and then built and fixed enough to build = =E2=80=9Cghc-aeson=E2=80=9D. There were a lot of problems, some of which I fixed with =E2=80=9Csquash!= =E2=80=9D commits that I can squash later. (I=E2=80=99m hoping that using =E2=80=9Cs= quash!=E2=80=9D commits to fix the =E2=80=9Cguix refresh=E2=80=9D commits will make collabo= ration easier, but maybe it will just give me a headache later when I have to squash everything =E2=80=93 we=E2=80=99ll see!) >> A single big commit is not a good idea, but you don=E2=80=99t really nee= d it as >> you=E2=80=99d merge the branch in one go, so Cuirass would not end up ev= aluating >> any of the intermediate commits anyway. It=E2=80=99s still good to have= smaller >> commits to better undo individual changes and more easily understand >> related changes. > > AIUI individual updates cannot really be un-done, because that would > break the entire dependency chain. > > I think it's OK to "squash" instances like this, both to clarify that > the changes are in fact related, and to make bisecting less painful. That=E2=80=99s correct, Marius. Jumping in anywhere along this chain of co= mmits would yield broken Haskell packages. That=E2=80=99s what I was hoping to a= void with a big, atomic commit. I get that big commits like that are really hard to audit, though. Right now, I=E2=80=99m doing it with small commits,= but it is easy enough to go from one style to the other before we merge. I suppose the core-updates workflow is essentially small commits. A big change like bumping GCC happens, and then packages that break as result of that change get fixed in later commits. Maybe we should keep that style for consistency. I=E2=80=99ll leave it to you maintainers to make the final call. ;) -- Tim