On Tue, Mar 14, 2023 at 11:30:52PM -0400, Maxim Cournoyer wrote:
> Hi,
> 
> Leo Famulari <leo@famulari.name> writes:
> 
> > On Tue, Mar 14, 2023 at 09:10:33PM -0400, Maxim Cournoyer wrote:
> >> Felix Lechner <felix.lechner@lease-up.com> writes:
> >> > With the core-updates process now abandoned, I retitled the issue to
> >> 
> >> Could you share the reference of that?  I'm not against it, but our
> >> currently documented process still mention the good old staging and
> >> core-updates branches.
> >
> > At the Guix Days in February, we discussed the branching workflow and
> > reached a rough consensus that for non-core packages (defined in
> > %core-packages), we should try to adopt a more targeted "feature branch"
> > workflow. That's actually what we used to do, before we outgrew our old
> > build farm, after which we were barely able to build one branch at a
> > time (IIRC, we would stop building master in order to build core-updates
> > or staging).
> >
> > The discussion was summarized by Andreas here:
> >
> > https://lists.gnu.org/archive/html/guix-devel/2023-02/msg00066.html
> 
> Thanks!  I had missed it.  It sounds promising!
> 
> > Currently we are demo-ing this workflow in the wip-go-updates branch and
> > go-team Cuirass jobset.
> 
> So the review happens first on the ML, then the changes land to the team
> branch, and then finally the feature branch gets merged to master?  If
> the review has already happened and the package been tested (and built
> by QA), why is a feature branch needed?

So we can group a couple of larger related changes together.

> > My hope is that we can rewrite the relevant documentation in the coming
> > months, as we learn from these early efforts.
> 
> OK!  Thanks for allowing me to catch up!
> 
> -- 
> Thanks,
> Maxim
> 

-- 
Efraim Flashner   <efraim@flashner.co.il>   אפרים פלשנר
GPG key = A28B F40C 3E55 1372 662D  14F7 41AA E7DC CA3D 8351
Confidentiality cannot be guaranteed on emails sent or received unencrypted