From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from mp2 ([2001:41d0:2:4a6f::]) (using TLSv1.3 with cipher TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 (256/256 bits)) by ms11 with LMTPS id yG+9BScDC19VOQAA0tVLHw (envelope-from ) for ; Sun, 12 Jul 2020 12:33:43 +0000 Received: from aspmx1.migadu.com ([2001:41d0:2:4a6f::]) (using TLSv1.3 with cipher TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 (256/256 bits)) by mp2 with LMTPS id UC2QAScDC184AQAAB5/wlQ (envelope-from ) for ; Sun, 12 Jul 2020 12:33:43 +0000 Received: from lists.gnu.org (lists.gnu.org [209.51.188.17]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by aspmx1.migadu.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id A9BB89403C9 for ; Sun, 12 Jul 2020 12:33:42 +0000 (UTC) Received: from localhost ([::1]:41292 helo=lists1p.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1jubAr-00023E-HI for larch@yhetil.org; Sun, 12 Jul 2020 08:33:41 -0400 Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([2001:470:142:3::10]:60438) by lists.gnu.org with esmtps (TLS1.2:ECDHE_RSA_AES_256_GCM_SHA384:256) (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1jubAj-000236-Py for guix-devel@gnu.org; Sun, 12 Jul 2020 08:33:33 -0400 Received: from fencepost.gnu.org ([2001:470:142:3::e]:42139) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1jubAj-0004CJ-HA; Sun, 12 Jul 2020 08:33:33 -0400 Received: from 84-52-226.102.3p.ntebredband.no ([84.52.226.102]:33864 helo=localhost) by fencepost.gnu.org with esmtpsa (TLS1.2:RSA_AES_256_CBC_SHA1:256) (Exim 4.82) (envelope-from ) id 1jubAj-0002hb-1e; Sun, 12 Jul 2020 08:33:33 -0400 From: Marius Bakke To: Jonathan Brielmaier , guix-devel@gnu.org Subject: Re: Pushed a fix (?) for ACL key location In-Reply-To: <522d8a75-a2ba-d6a0-908f-a6e5029c3309@web.de> References: <877dv98q1z.fsf@dustycloud.org> <522d8a75-a2ba-d6a0-908f-a6e5029c3309@web.de> Date: Sun, 12 Jul 2020 14:33:20 +0200 Message-ID: <87y2noc3qn.fsf@gnu.org> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/signed; boundary="=-=-="; micalg=pgp-sha512; protocol="application/pgp-signature" X-BeenThere: guix-devel@gnu.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.23 Precedence: list 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+larch=yhetil.org@gnu.org Sender: "Guix-devel" X-Scanner: scn0 Authentication-Results: aspmx1.migadu.com; dkim=none; dmarc=none; spf=pass (aspmx1.migadu.com: domain of guix-devel-bounces@gnu.org designates 209.51.188.17 as permitted sender) smtp.mailfrom=guix-devel-bounces@gnu.org X-Spam-Score: -3.11 X-TUID: Eq95yja2JpWu --=-=-= Content-Type: text/plain Jonathan Brielmaier writes: > On 12.07.20 03:44, Christopher Lemmer Webber wrote: >> Commit 6680880f9b8dceb4f2f3f91bd2b13c659b53835e pushed out a new version >> of Guix, and it looks like it wasn't possible to build new systems from >> that because the filename for the "Berlin ACL key" changed. (Or at >> least, I couldn't run "guix system vm".) >> >> I pushed out a "fix" for this. I hope it's ok. > > Thanks for the fix. > > As I ran into all those little errors with `guix pull` this week-end, I > wonder if we can do better. This particular change broke 'guix system', not 'guix pull'. Which is equally bad of course, but a different kind of beast entirely. Are you referring to something else? > So maybe some pre-checkin CI which tests that a commit/commit series > doesn't break `guix pull`. What do you think? Is this doable? > I find those little errors pretty annoying as they seem to be avoidable > through technical counter measures... One possible solution that has been discussed before is to have the CI continously merge master to a 'stable' branch when lights are green. There are quite a few challenges to solve with that approach though. We could make the pre-push hook run 'guix pull' and 'guix system build' but it will quickly get annoying. A server-side hook for the same would be less annoying, but would have a hard time if someone accidentally pushes a full rebuild. In practice there will always be problems that cannot be caught in an automated way. I hope such breakages are rare, but from your message it sounds like there were many problems just this week-end? --=-=-= Content-Type: application/pgp-signature; name="signature.asc" -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- iQEzBAEBCgAdFiEEu7At3yzq9qgNHeZDoqBt8qM6VPoFAl8LAxAACgkQoqBt8qM6 VPqifQf9GMxPbnNVks2AWxtafiuL9g0v61ul2W0xe0d8/dyRPXEZ/XGT1nNcuMZ4 LYWnjcyvEecYudkh5RHvk2DJnZfB9l8zNpJW/O8inV1qYh8tGsmdUHprXJkTxIxZ Ma6hkinAXh+pZL7Iqn2Ct24t5VXl8rbpUl2LvOVb608wODu5cojxQnPH+Mzn/q1J PirB9LfLEZm9L0NHcrsQjq2ZKuFSOP+nkr7GToltRLkOvpXi9NoHXNu1BAYvEsXD 8g8k8jlW4DP1OymYAizw/nG+91kVzB8LEdW3OhzxKME1g6XyVvylOun8+EqNbENF a5Q7CKG0uxkqoyXsqceOCfnYlTefWQ== =PQEk -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --=-=-=--