From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
From: Leo Famulari <leo@famulari.name>
Subject: Re: guix revisions (Re: [Patch] Tmux Themepack)
Date: Sun, 10 Jul 2016 11:45:20 -0400
Message-ID: <20160710154520.GA20980@jasmine>
References: <871t46gtte.fsf@mailerver.i-did-not-set--mail-host-address--so-tickle-me>
	<8737ok6ue5.fsf@mdc-berlin.de>
	<87ziqqfa6y.fsf@mailerver.i-did-not-set--mail-host-address--so-tickle-me>
	<20160618000030.GA19441@jasmine>
	<87lh19zix7.fsf_-_@we.make.ritual.n0.is>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Return-path: <guix-devel-bounces+gcggd-guix-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org>
Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([2001:4830:134:3::10]:47067)
	by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71)
	(envelope-from <leo@famulari.name>) id 1bMGvM-0006ED-6e
	for guix-devel@gnu.org; Sun, 10 Jul 2016 11:45:41 -0400
Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71)
	(envelope-from <leo@famulari.name>) id 1bMGvG-0002dz-1p
	for guix-devel@gnu.org; Sun, 10 Jul 2016 11:45:39 -0400
Received: from out4-smtp.messagingengine.com ([66.111.4.28]:43365)
	by eggs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71)
	(envelope-from <leo@famulari.name>) id 1bMGvC-0002dO-Od
	for guix-devel@gnu.org; Sun, 10 Jul 2016 11:45:33 -0400
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <87lh19zix7.fsf_-_@we.make.ritual.n0.is>
List-Id: "Development of GNU Guix and the GNU System distribution."
	<guix-devel.gnu.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/options/guix-devel>,
	<mailto:guix-devel-request@gnu.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://lists.gnu.org/archive/html/guix-devel/>
List-Post: <mailto:guix-devel@gnu.org>
List-Help: <mailto:guix-devel-request@gnu.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/guix-devel>,
	<mailto:guix-devel-request@gnu.org?subject=subscribe>
Errors-To: guix-devel-bounces+gcggd-guix-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org
Sender: "Guix-devel" <guix-devel-bounces+gcggd-guix-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org>
To: ng0 <ng0@we.make.ritual.n0.is>
Cc: guix-devel <guix-devel@gnu.org>

On Sun, Jul 10, 2016 at 02:06:44PM +0000, ng0 wrote:
> A side question: We do guix revisions of packages? I know we had
> a discussion on this in the past which included the string-take
> commit 7 or 8, but even with using grep in the gnu/packages dir
> it's not obvious as egrep -nr 'revision "1"'
> for example just gives 5 results.
> So the documentation needs to be improved, I agree.

Without using a revision integer, `guix package --upgrade` will not work
correctly, since Git hashes do not increase (or decrease) reliably.

For example, the computer can't tell which of these two version strings
is the newer version:

"0.0.0-deadbeef"
"0.0.0-cabba9e"

Not all packages declare a revision variable, but I think it is helpful.

Any suggestions on improving this part of the manual? It *does*
explicity describe this problem and the solution. Should we add the
revision variable to the code example?