From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([2001:470:142:3::10]:35011) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.86_2) (envelope-from ) id 1hpb4d-0007m8-2D for guix-patches@gnu.org; Mon, 22 Jul 2019 12:22:03 -0400 Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1hpb4c-000331-2b for guix-patches@gnu.org; Mon, 22 Jul 2019 12:22:02 -0400 Received: from debbugs.gnu.org ([209.51.188.43]:52930) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtps (TLS1.0:RSA_AES_128_CBC_SHA1:16) (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1hpb4b-00032x-Ua for guix-patches@gnu.org; Mon, 22 Jul 2019 12:22:02 -0400 Received: from Debian-debbugs by debbugs.gnu.org with local (Exim 4.84_2) (envelope-from ) id 1hpb4b-0002s1-KG for guix-patches@gnu.org; Mon, 22 Jul 2019 12:22:01 -0400 Subject: [bug#36555] [PATCH v3 0/3] Refactor out common behavior for system reconfiguration. Resent-Message-ID: From: zerodaysfordays@sdf.lonestar.org (Jakob L. Kreuze) References: <87imsci9sj.fsf@sdf.lonestar.org> <87ef30i9fl.fsf@sdf.lonestar.org> <87y3129qsn.fsf@gnu.org> <87sgr9bziq.fsf@sdf.lonestar.org> <87pnmc7nt1.fsf@gnu.org> <8736j7nwcb.fsf@sdf.lonestar.org> <87muhfjm14.fsf@gnu.org> <87ftn63l7d.fsf@sdf.lonestar.org> <87v9w1zgon.fsf_-_@sdf.lonestar.org> <87y30v3qke.fsf@sdf.lonestar.org> <87a7d924wb.fsf@dustycloud.org> Date: Mon, 22 Jul 2019 12:18:53 -0400 In-Reply-To: <87a7d924wb.fsf@dustycloud.org> (Christopher Lemmer Webber's message of "Fri, 19 Jul 2019 15:36:20 -0400") Message-ID: <87k1caavpu.fsf@sdf.lonestar.org> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/signed; boundary="=-=-="; micalg=pgp-sha256; protocol="application/pgp-signature" 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: Christopher Lemmer Webber Cc: 36555@debbugs.gnu.org --=-=-= Content-Type: text/plain Hey, Chris! Christopher Lemmer Webber writes: > My main worry is that such a patch series may be forgotten. Would it > be inappropriate to make a "stub" patch issue for both of the followup > patch series, since both seem important and we don't want to forget > them? Alternatively, because these patches address existing issues with 'guix deploy', should we open tickets on the issue tracker? I don't have too much of a preference: either way should work fine for ensuring that we don't forget about them. Regards, Jakob --=-=-= Content-Type: application/pgp-signature; name="signature.asc" -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- iQIzBAEBCAAdFiEEa1VJLOiXAjQ2BGSm9Qb9Fp2P2VoFAl014e0ACgkQ9Qb9Fp2P 2VoLLg/6AqwdBunkQB9rIxIHsTZG5gavGzUrs5qZJ0F8KHA+wV8hHY0zNzJJEBN7 9jhDTRzY/3fHQdDEk4Fd+URiZtFOvPhz6vTza+GhG4P3pTpJqLwdbMYivmS+RVcb j7141YP1LtyLIv02ZtOJGOO7KhRMm17voWg+/Wap2ttQA1vPYSVPDyMzNA6fKpnv LW5JXGqJijpnlYCqI6dKi0re7TTKqMNn5N63lISqdaeV9rN/WVw6fQCoR/+z6C+A AZ0foQf/Rk3I7V3R96n/N/fWtAa7Het8Y/E0CZMfmaF6+RtzDK4eEef1JvK00fQY 8nYvprPZWwH6xyGiFcbY0n84B/oydpvM0po3Mbxwft1G3XxtzqkotITvC6qAyEBc A9EhpefTCHxVbHzFuzI5VWHzic7mM/dtyLz4ug7bYkNNvmcEi8RRahSGIYr9J/Ko PG/XHnyWqxu8SapIiDF8AV3i4pkjslFn79RHnFAZmEWXfCEz9giRAx+3xcXgUMHg qq9VBY8ZAbCa9onP0qrs5i+GSe6+fMocrH9uwHnNvQw0GHPfr33x96fYp5Bo6wdM UaZwIrQI5497Ghj4BKTqm9Sz9GKlceySA7j5dzF7Sk8Qeq3WDXaXfes/f1gUUVio 9sU92PF5Y/a65u2+Uro0+r09nWy0Fjsqml+7xaQ4LVXDAUYLNFc= =HoKY -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --=-=-=--