From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from mp1 ([2001:41d0:2:bcc0::]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) by ms0.migadu.com with LMTPS id oMw1Jk2WfWALXAAAgWs5BA (envelope-from ) for ; Mon, 19 Apr 2021 16:40:13 +0200 Received: from aspmx1.migadu.com ([2001:41d0:2:bcc0::]) (using TLSv1.3 with cipher TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 (256/256 bits)) by mp1 with LMTPS id CHu/IU2WfWBDegAAbx9fmQ (envelope-from ) for ; Mon, 19 Apr 2021 14:40:13 +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 410B09033 for ; Mon, 19 Apr 2021 16:40:13 +0200 (CEST) Received: from localhost ([::1]:58180 helo=lists1p.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1lYV4O-0002le-6Q for larch@yhetil.org; Mon, 19 Apr 2021 10:40:12 -0400 Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([2001:470:142:3::10]:40342) by lists.gnu.org with esmtps (TLS1.2:ECDHE_RSA_AES_256_GCM_SHA384:256) (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1lYV4F-0002j7-1C for guix-patches@gnu.org; Mon, 19 Apr 2021 10:40:03 -0400 Received: from debbugs.gnu.org ([209.51.188.43]:39994) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtps (TLS1.2:ECDHE_RSA_AES_128_GCM_SHA256:128) (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1lYV4E-0006Jo-PO for guix-patches@gnu.org; Mon, 19 Apr 2021 10:40:02 -0400 Received: from Debian-debbugs by debbugs.gnu.org with local (Exim 4.84_2) (envelope-from ) id 1lYV4E-0008Fq-Ko for guix-patches@gnu.org; Mon, 19 Apr 2021 10:40:02 -0400 X-Loop: help-debbugs@gnu.org Subject: [bug#47539] [PATCH v2 00/26] Add github-cli and dependencies Resent-From: Xinglu Chen Original-Sender: "Debbugs-submit" Resent-CC: guix-patches@gnu.org Resent-Date: Mon, 19 Apr 2021 14:40:02 +0000 Resent-Message-ID: Resent-Sender: help-debbugs@gnu.org X-GNU-PR-Message: followup 47539 X-GNU-PR-Package: guix-patches X-GNU-PR-Keywords: patch To: Leo Prikler , 47539@debbugs.gnu.org Received: via spool by 47539-submit@debbugs.gnu.org id=B47539.161884319931716 (code B ref 47539); Mon, 19 Apr 2021 14:40:02 +0000 Received: (at 47539) by debbugs.gnu.org; 19 Apr 2021 14:39:59 +0000 Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1]:51540 helo=debbugs.gnu.org) by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.84_2) (envelope-from ) id 1lYV4B-0008FU-Dq for submit@debbugs.gnu.org; Mon, 19 Apr 2021 10:39:59 -0400 Received: from h87-96-130-155.cust.a3fiber.se ([87.96.130.155]:56534 helo=mail.yoctocell.xyz) by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.84_2) (envelope-from ) id 1lYV49-0008F8-EL for 47539@debbugs.gnu.org; Mon, 19 Apr 2021 10:39:58 -0400 From: Xinglu Chen DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=yoctocell.xyz; s=mail; t=1618843189; bh=oyYwLtQoqCPrFJ/AkrauUOUr7rH1SrL4Sg422PNPhoc=; h=From:To:Subject:In-Reply-To:References:Date; b=HYI/X6Rq/lE/gv2yLSV5IW1A0ozAI59BfUQTOFdqzhZBMgyGHsVJ7f9rC43xLJ6RD Bs61MxZ0/wyZKWCYa00hH4QTfHXlm+4xPEpvHUyjcuFXc8ZUH0Q2snHvHV3tBgKLIu HfkdeD4nNkChQG2ETbFpqD6GnZFAyUamY7c6MmNk= In-Reply-To: References: <87im4ie7bg.fsf@yoctocell.xyz> Date: Mon, 19 Apr 2021 16:39:49 +0200 Message-ID: <878s5ee3t6.fsf@yoctocell.xyz> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable X-BeenThere: debbugs-submit@debbugs.gnu.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.18 Precedence: list X-BeenThere: guix-patches@gnu.org List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Errors-To: guix-patches-bounces+larch=yhetil.org@gnu.org Sender: "Guix-patches" X-Migadu-Flow: FLOW_IN ARC-Message-Signature: i=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=yhetil.org; s=key1; t=1618843213; h=from:from:sender:sender:reply-to:subject:subject:date:date: message-id:message-id:to:to:cc:mime-version:mime-version: content-type:content-type: content-transfer-encoding:content-transfer-encoding:resent-cc: resent-from:resent-sender:resent-message-id:in-reply-to:in-reply-to: references:references:list-id:list-help:list-unsubscribe: list-subscribe:list-post:dkim-signature; bh=44pS6fLJlwsJ1ogbfh5S4I4XknKvcM1Ow/DdwCXHKT4=; b=LOFkZTTp487ZCJf52x940WnFuA/1Yy1T25b22Lxrza/FW5Xwpq7/nL5NccFA4S73aUx2Ff yB5oaxmrcXsjZqRwdUIpWLOR/OQkU9xznty3vAgq7SBN1SBwYFOfidwWdpcfJH97Xtk1dZ gtGwHFMC3fbldS2csp7wKaAtxQE6s+3W8lURd2aUVbaEhOPgB32yisgdVKwS7/0XHgEF6A BT2fB22yFsgTuCexDT8EuVE6BjsSr/Rk7ICnnXG+MiOw70nirbhlG2L5m2WNB7RmoFy+SJ WW8zsdMvCtk/nD9DekB8kCJmfnF4W1sbLsP5oxTODMVsRAgqG6kfsOOzumzLWw== ARC-Seal: i=1; s=key1; d=yhetil.org; t=1618843213; a=rsa-sha256; cv=none; b=VN1JJxrDMok4YaK6mu2vCBHbySNdPMWhGtBmkd4hWerHg9Ojl2/FG9+s4eZAUbMuClPoWE o4JG2ycvN20fiQDw6cN2qTiVKBGxh2fk3dJDSZUYX9r1RYpMqURyW+fVBMfCsRxVmvPpYC b7CgL5vDA1fWaip33++LEtFeCNYwqFefPbZJccENQTb7eua32w+W6sYGdK9XE5nkv5wgHf C+0JZj3UpBZNDVYIS89zlH0YfxzQ6cn8SZ8aRH7T0rsvP1729+WIK3tk6PjYW5TBmG4xiT YXfKUhYxQzvvurTVHyDo9uP/g75IY7JOgeqXfLtuNBykTj7Z+AlK4gBLFgOu/Q== ARC-Authentication-Results: i=1; aspmx1.migadu.com; dkim=fail ("headers rsa verify failed") header.d=yoctocell.xyz header.s=mail header.b="HYI/X6Rq"; dmarc=fail reason="SPF not aligned (relaxed)" header.from=yoctocell.xyz (policy=none); spf=pass (aspmx1.migadu.com: domain of guix-patches-bounces@gnu.org designates 209.51.188.17 as permitted sender) smtp.mailfrom=guix-patches-bounces@gnu.org X-Migadu-Spam-Score: -1.34 Authentication-Results: aspmx1.migadu.com; dkim=fail ("headers rsa verify failed") header.d=yoctocell.xyz header.s=mail header.b="HYI/X6Rq"; dmarc=fail reason="SPF not aligned (relaxed)" header.from=yoctocell.xyz (policy=none); spf=pass (aspmx1.migadu.com: domain of guix-patches-bounces@gnu.org designates 209.51.188.17 as permitted sender) smtp.mailfrom=guix-patches-bounces@gnu.org X-Migadu-Queue-Id: 410B09033 X-Spam-Score: -1.34 X-Migadu-Scanner: scn0.migadu.com X-TUID: 5hMGG9N4JSyp On Mon, Apr 19 2021, Leo Prikler wrote: > Am Montag, den 19.04.2021, 15:24 +0200 schrieb Xinglu Chen: >> Friendly ping! :) > I think you fixed most of my concerns from the previous run, but > looking at Patchwork, there appear to still be a few issues: > > 1. Some patches don't seem to apply correctly over at Patchwork [1].=20 > This can perhaps be ignored, as it seems to be an issue with patches > being received out of order and the last one applies cleanly. Hmm, they applied on my local checkout, maybe it=E2=80=99s something to do = with the order. > 2. The corresponding revision fails to build [2]. I will look into that. > 3. The patch for safeexec still seems to be part of the series even > though it's unused. Didn't you mean to exclude that one? Oops, not sure what I did there, it should be removed. > Again, I'm not really familiar with the Go side of things, so while as > a reviewer I can point out stuff, that is not aesthetically pleasing, > as a committer I'm somewhat forced to trust what the CI tells me. I > would personally feel more reassured if someone with a bit of Go > experience had a look at this patch set, but judging from the 2 weeks > of silence, it seems they are all sleeping or silently trusting me to > do a good job. Understood, thanks for taking a look!