[bug#43427] [PATCH] gnu: zstd: Update to 1.4.5.

[Greg Hogan <code@greghogan.com>]

Thanks, T-G-R. I will endeavor to tag for staging and core-updates going forward. Not sure how I missed the prior commit. I may have been looking among patches. Not sure how I missed the git log, and in the future I will be certain to simply check the latest version from each branch.

Would it be feasible to have `guix refresh` consider staging and core-updates when reporting available updates?

Greg

> On Sep 22, 2020, at 5:59 AM, Tobias Geerinckx-Rice <me@tobias.gr> wrote:
> 
> Greg,
> 
> Mathieu Othacehe 写道：
>> The update is already present on core-updates branch,
> 
> Sorry for the duplicate work!  How were you to've known this, you ask?
> 
> $ guix refresh --list-dependent PACKAGE
> 
> or ‘-l’ for short will list the number of rebuilds that a hash change in PACKAGE would trigger.
> 
> If it's higher than 300, the patch belongs on the ‘staging’ or ‘core-updates’ branches instead of ‘master’.  The exact numbers are in the ‘Submitting Patches’ section of the Guix manual.
> 
> In practice, it's not always clear-cut.  A patch that rebuilds fewer than 300 packages but includes IceCat, Ungoogled Chromium, and LibreOffice probably belongs on ‘staging’ regardless.  A patch that rebuilds 350 (fast-building) Perl packages might be OK for master.
> 
> It's good practice to include the branch name (e.g., ‘[PATCH core-updates]’) when submitting patches not suitable for master.
> 
> Kind regards,
> 
> T G-R