From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([2001:4830:134:3::10]:59767) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1dsGzp-0003q3-RT for guix-patches@gnu.org; Wed, 13 Sep 2017 19:23:06 -0400 Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1dsGzm-0000bl-EX for guix-patches@gnu.org; Wed, 13 Sep 2017 19:23:05 -0400 Received: from debbugs.gnu.org ([208.118.235.43]:58621) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtps (TLS1.0:RSA_AES_128_CBC_SHA1:16) (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1dsGzm-0000be-B5 for guix-patches@gnu.org; Wed, 13 Sep 2017 19:23:02 -0400 Received: from Debian-debbugs by debbugs.gnu.org with local (Exim 4.84_2) (envelope-from ) id 1dsGzm-0008Ct-3A for guix-patches@gnu.org; Wed, 13 Sep 2017 19:23:02 -0400 Subject: bug#28281: [PATCH] gnu: Add os-prober. Resent-To: guix-patches@gnu.org Resent-Message-ID: Message-Id: <4809643e.AEAAP-oSfhoAAAAAAAAAAAPrGxQAAAACwQwAAAAAAAW9WABZub3B@mailjet.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 From: Arun Isaac Date: Thu, 14 Sep 2017 04:52:30 +0530 In-reply-to: <87a821aswk.fsf@gnu.org> References: <20170909171635.7968-1-arunisaac@systemreboot.net> <874lsa900c.fsf@gnu.org> <403302d1.ADkAAC_e-_IAAAAAAAAAAAOzWv8AAAACwQwAAAAAAAW9WABZtWIT@mailjet.com> <87k2165lry.fsf@gnu.org> <5dc91a20.AEAAPzHdNuYAAAAAAAAAAAOzWv8AAAACwQwAAAAAAAW9WABZtcxv@mailjet.com> <87shftelsx.fsf@gnu.org> <207deec4.AEAAP2Xyu24AAAAAAAAAAAOzWv8AAAACwQwAAAAAAAW9WABZtsaB@mailjet.com> <87a821aswk.fsf@gnu.org> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Errors-To: guix-patches-bounces+kyle=kyleam.com@gnu.org Sender: "Guix-patches" To: 28281-done@debbugs.gnu.org >> Should I >> >> 1. push the patch I sent most recently >> >> OR >> >> 2. or add a #:recursive? argument to `find-files', and push a patch >> which uses this new `find-files'? >> >> IMO, approach 2 is a better idea, though it could be that we are adding >> too many keyword arguments to `find-files'. >> >> WDYT? > > I’m for approach #1, go for it! :-) Ok, pushed!