From: Andreas Enge <andreas@enge.fr>
To: "Ludovic Courtès" <ludo@gnu.org>
Cc: Simon Tournier <zimon.toutoune@gmail.com>,
guix-devel <guix-devel@gnu.org>
Subject: Re: ‘core-updates’ is gone; long live ‘core-packages-team’!
Date: Fri, 6 Sep 2024 12:09:05 +0200 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <ZtrUwdzShJ2Unw5z@jurong> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <87zfol170t.fsf@gnu.org>
Hello,
Am Fri, Sep 06, 2024 at 11:11:14AM +0200 schrieb Ludovic Courtès:
> The way I see it, one of the branches would be tested independently.
> The second one would also be tested independently, but on a limited
> scope—e.g., x86_64-only, because (1) we usually have more build power
> for that architecture, and (2) perhaps we know the problems with those
> branches are unlikely to be architecture-specific.
> Then we’d rebase that second branch on top of the first one, and build
> the combination for all architectures.
concurring with Simon, following this description, I also do not understand
what this concept of merge trains improves as long as it is not automated
(and we have lots of build power to subsequently build several combinations
of branches).
Once the first branch is good, why not simply merge it to master and then
rebase the second branch on master and test it, instead of postponing the
merge? After all, building is costly, not merging.
Notice that with QA, the concept is that the packages will be available
on the build farm once the branch has been built, so postponing a merge
has no advantage.
Andreas
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2024-09-06 10:09 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 22+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2024-08-31 13:03 ‘core-updates’ is gone; long live ‘core-packages-team’! Ludovic Courtès
2024-09-01 16:34 ` Steve George
2024-09-01 17:06 ` Christopher Baines
2024-09-03 14:02 ` Christopher Baines
2024-09-06 9:01 ` Ludovic Courtès
2024-09-09 15:30 ` Simon Tournier
2024-09-04 12:58 ` Simon Tournier
2024-09-05 8:39 ` Marek Paśnikowski
2024-09-05 9:40 ` Ricardo Wurmus
2024-09-06 9:11 ` Ludovic Courtès
2024-09-06 10:09 ` Andreas Enge [this message]
2024-09-06 11:35 ` Marek Paśnikowski
2024-09-06 13:25 ` Andreas Enge
2024-09-06 13:17 ` indieterminacy
2024-09-26 12:52 ` Ludovic Courtès
2024-09-06 17:44 ` Vagrant Cascadian
2024-09-06 18:06 ` Leo Famulari
2024-09-06 20:29 ` Rebasing commits and re-signing before mergeing (Was: ‘core-updates’ is gone; long live ‘core-packages-team’!) Vagrant Cascadian
2024-09-07 17:45 ` Leo Famulari
2024-09-08 2:33 ` Vagrant Cascadian
2024-09-06 19:49 ` ‘core-updates’ is gone; long live ‘core-packages-team’! Christopher Baines
2024-09-09 17:28 ` Naming “build train” instead of “merge train”? Simon Tournier
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
List information: https://guix.gnu.org/
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=ZtrUwdzShJ2Unw5z@jurong \
--to=andreas@enge.fr \
--cc=guix-devel@gnu.org \
--cc=ludo@gnu.org \
--cc=zimon.toutoune@gmail.com \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
Code repositories for project(s) associated with this public inbox
https://git.savannah.gnu.org/cgit/guix.git
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox;
as well as URLs for read-only IMAP folder(s) and NNTP newsgroup(s).