From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: ludo@gnu.org (Ludovic =?utf-8?Q?Court=C3=A8s?=) Subject: Re: 01/01: gnu: Add rclone. Date: Wed, 28 Nov 2018 15:50:14 +0100 Message-ID: <87k1kx2r4p.fsf@gnu.org> References: <20181127204001.24071.37439@vcs0.savannah.gnu.org> <20181127204002.3CA6B209DD@vcs0.savannah.gnu.org> <87sgzl92yf.fsf@netris.org> <87bm69saxd.fsf@nicolasgoaziou.fr> 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]:53873) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1gS1Bm-0003Xt-Sm for guix-devel@gnu.org; Wed, 28 Nov 2018 09:51:44 -0500 Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1gS1Ag-00054M-P0 for guix-devel@gnu.org; Wed, 28 Nov 2018 09:50:36 -0500 In-Reply-To: <87bm69saxd.fsf@nicolasgoaziou.fr> (Nicolas Goaziou's message of "Wed, 28 Nov 2018 12:23:26 +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" To: Nicolas Goaziou Cc: guix-devel@gnu.org Hello, Nicolas Goaziou skribis: > Mark H Weaver writes: > >> Did you test this? > > Yes, of course I tested it. I was using it for my own needs before > sending the patch for review. I obviously fumbled somehow when I sent > the mail, but I still do not get when or why. Yeah, these things happen, and evidently I overlooked it as well when reviewing the patch. Mark reverted it quickly enough that this was mostly harmless. >> There's a syntax error in the code, such that it not only fails to >> build, but it fails even to produce a _derivation_ describing the build. >> Unfortunately, this kind of error in any package causes problems for our >> build farm, which currently assumes that this kind of error will not >> occur. Such errors not only cause the individual build to fail, but >> moreover for the entire process that generates a new CI "evaluation" to >> fail, which effectively prevents subsequent package updates on that >> branch from being built until the problem is corrected. > > I suggest to add a check, if possible, for that kind of mistake =E2=80=94= e.g., > check if `arguments' value is a valid property list =E2=80=94 because for= getting > a line in a leaf package should not cause the whole build farm to die. Longer-term I think we should all push to a dedicated branch and have server-side automation apply to =E2=80=98master=E2=80=99 patches that pass = a few tests (commit signed by an authorized key, =E2=80=98guix lint=E2=80=99, things li= ke that.) We=E2=80=99ll get there but for now the test is when CI gets around to evaluating the given commit. Ludo=E2=80=99.