From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: ludo@gnu.org (Ludovic =?utf-8?Q?Court=C3=A8s?=) Subject: Re: [PATCH] emacs: Add support for deleting generations. Date: Sun, 05 Oct 2014 21:20:26 +0200 Message-ID: <87r3ymcohx.fsf@gnu.org> References: <87k3719v7p.fsf@gmail.com> <87fvho9fqm.fsf@gmail.com> <87a97taixl.fsf@gmail.com> <87sil2rbly.fsf@gnu.org> <87tx5idn7f.fsf_-_@gmail.com> <87egwlkcy1.fsf@gnu.org> <87ppg5el2i.fsf@gmail.com> <87d2c5h4if.fsf@gnu.org> <87lhqsev1d.fsf@gmail.com> <877g2c74xh.fsf@gnu.org> <87ha1gds3w.fsf@gmail.com> <8761hsmxkl.fsf@gnu.org> <87zjf4d1mh.fsf@gmail.com> <87mwb0b3fq.fsf@gnu.org> <87ha17ctyv.fsf_-_@gmail.com> <87ppfs6gxk.fsf@gnu.org> <87wq8fk979.fsf_-_@gmail.com> <87eguninyx.fsf@gnu.org> <87k34ekic2.fsf_-_@gmail.com> <874mviek0l.fsf@gnu.org> <87fvf2jrzc.fsf@gmail.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]:45548) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1XarMB-0005Xx-SK for guix-devel@gnu.org; Sun, 05 Oct 2014 15:20:44 -0400 Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1XarM2-00082r-Q0 for guix-devel@gnu.org; Sun, 05 Oct 2014 15:20:35 -0400 Received: from hera.aquilenet.fr ([2a01:474::1]:48232) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1XarM2-00081v-2h for guix-devel@gnu.org; Sun, 05 Oct 2014 15:20:26 -0400 In-Reply-To: <87fvf2jrzc.fsf@gmail.com> (Alex Kost's message of "Sun, 05 Oct 2014 22:23:19 +0400") 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: Alex Kost Cc: guix-devel@gnu.org Alex Kost skribis: > Thanks for the comments, the updated patch is attached. I also fixed > another =E2=80=9Ci.e.=E2=80=9D thing there and used =E2=80=98with-store= =E2=80=99 in > =E2=80=98process-package-actions=E2=80=99 procedure as well. Is it OK to= make these > changes in this commit (the =E2=80=98with-store=E2=80=99 change is small = but many lines > were changed because of the new indentation)? The =E2=80=98with-store=E2=80=99 change in =E2=80=98process-package-actions= =E2=80=99 would be better in a separate patch, because it fixes an unrelated file descriptor leak. Other than that the patch looks good to me, thank you! Ludo=E2=80=99.