From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([2001:470:142:3::10]:42974) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.86_2) (envelope-from ) id 1hj4Ac-0005Gq-Uc for guix-patches@gnu.org; Thu, 04 Jul 2019 12:01:16 -0400 Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1hj4AX-0006Ga-55 for guix-patches@gnu.org; Thu, 04 Jul 2019 12:01:11 -0400 Received: from debbugs.gnu.org ([209.51.188.43]:42933) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtps (TLS1.0:RSA_AES_128_CBC_SHA1:16) (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1hj4AQ-0006DA-8Y for guix-patches@gnu.org; Thu, 04 Jul 2019 12:01:05 -0400 Received: from Debian-debbugs by debbugs.gnu.org with local (Exim 4.84_2) (envelope-from ) id 1hj4AQ-0003bS-2w for guix-patches@gnu.org; Thu, 04 Jul 2019 12:01:02 -0400 Subject: [bug#36404] [PATCH v4 2/4] gnu: Add machine type for deployment specifications. Resent-Message-ID: From: zerodaysfordays@sdf.lonestar.org (Jakob L. Kreuze) References: <87o92ianbj.fsf@sdf.lonestar.org> <87o92glap5.fsf@dustycloud.org> <878sthoqzi.fsf@gnu.org> <87imsl9tsx.fsf_-_@sdf.lonestar.org> <87ef399tpu.fsf_-_@sdf.lonestar.org> <87a7dx9tog.fsf_-_@sdf.lonestar.org> <875zol9tn2.fsf_-_@sdf.lonestar.org> <871rz99tl9.fsf_-_@sdf.lonestar.org> <875zoldqah.fsf@kyleam.com> <87muhwtmfp.fsf@sdf.lonestar.org> <871rz874l2.fsf@kyleam.com> <877e90tj7l.fsf_-_@sdf.lonestar.org> <8736jotj5v.fsf_-_@sdf.lonestar.org> <87y31gs4k5.fsf_-_@sdf.lonestar.org> <87r27688e0.fsf@gnu.org> Date: Thu, 04 Jul 2019 11:59:49 -0400 In-Reply-To: <87r27688e0.fsf@gnu.org> ("Ludovic \=\?utf-8\?Q\?Court\=C3\=A8s\=22'\?\= \=\?utf-8\?Q\?s\?\= message of "Thu, 04 Jul 2019 11:19:03 +0200") Message-ID: <87o9293i4q.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: Ludovic =?UTF-8?Q?Court=C3=A8s?= Cc: 36404@debbugs.gnu.org --=-=-= Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Hi Ludovic, Ludovic Court=C3=A8s writes: > To me the end goal was to move these =E2=80=9Ceffectful=E2=80=9D bits int= o a script, > such that both =E2=80=98guix system reconfigure=E2=80=99 and =E2=80=98gui= x deploy=E2=80=99 would only > have to run that script, locally or remotely. That would avoid > duplicating these somewhat tricky procedures. Ah, that's starting to ring a bell now. I believe you mentioned that when 'guix deploy' was initially being proposed, but at the time I didn't quite register that we'd be extracting the behavior in that way. > Now, perhaps we can start like this, and leave factorization for > later? I just want to make sure we don=E2=80=99t forget about that and le= t it > evolve into something we have a hard time maintaining. > > WDYT? I agree. I'm getting the impression that people don't want this to sit in review limbo for too long, and in terms of "commit history hygiene," I think it would be better to recognize refactoring out the common behavior as a distinct change. Thanks! Regards, Jakob --=-=-= Content-Type: application/pgp-signature; name="signature.asc" -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- iQIzBAEBCAAdFiEEa1VJLOiXAjQ2BGSm9Qb9Fp2P2VoFAl0eIncACgkQ9Qb9Fp2P 2Vod0w/+Idur/TVyhglj3m8rFifhzLqZylE909dWHY7ThBDUDkTv+hRVMwE15pBq 9aIGf3fiok5jguA9y9KbdaAaXvblSr03tjT1SJ4g64/mnKL35ApR1JYuJ46c7ISl JIDoUjfHYJ/j+sRsa0bpZF7zDTndocl2JGOYFWSQQXcRv5jl7tmuU4Qyty1bd/bt ZkoJ6tgUj63GpT6pZvThqQadU8dYgQFguyEVf+01Iu0MhWaOTbr0EW27kCw+r3p3 jAQo+8aMxvC2DUPm/Wy5i8yTQlDj03zhqDk4JC78g0m6FRpPkNUdbzYKukUNYb/o Ic5zGO0+XS4TfNQV2x3oXENj77FXjaT5j+e75bO7OFZvMhFuVL+oNCMKNFpV93Mw pruw9lrUNbEeqNFcgiKGCzuhicyrCkelTPLz4F8JZewqPVcZQLeqs5zmHGtal8dt mfbYfeYtkXy2TEl+0FsR/Q7QM3Xg6If080aB7NlMQ7czAKd3qDg3VeNeqfMw2ddT uEAZ6mxuPj8QLnokol5aHxkCC9NoFT6Ft1Ls9cEPLT5cjnrbHM/X/Ko29YqRh0QR OxGnGTo0HM711PdXzgRb6aPxiEhQ9zXg8w7KN6+ezOnSjgaJuks4rj9Q6Dn7D6Mw TrqbGoRpwZlkdmVY2tGF9sDjUA4jq9p+TLnSsGmJHCmMgimVjGQ= =FIsV -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --=-=-=--