Re: Ensuring we don't break user systems

[Julien Lepiller <julien@lepiller.eu>]

Le Tue, 31 Jul 2018 15:15:24 +0200,
Clément Lassieur <clement@lassieur.org> a écrit :

> Hi Pjotr,
> 
> Pjotr Prins <pjotr.public12@thebird.nl> writes:
> 
> > On Mon, Jul 30, 2018 at 12:58:08PM +0200, Hartmut Goebel wrote:  
> >> Julien Lepiller <julien@lepiller.eu> skribis:  
> >> >> We wouldcreate a new branch, stable, that would be used by guix
> >> >> pull. We would continue to push to master or other branches.  
> >> 
> >> +1  
> >
> > Alternatively guix pull should only fetch the last tagged release.
> > This has the advantage some people can test it before going into the
> > wider world. Essentially a mini release cycle. And it does not have
> > to be every day:
> >
> > 1. Decide on a time point (git hash) for the next guix pull (branch
> >    it)
> > 2. Ask some people to test it (in addition to automated testing)
> > 3. When OK tag release
> > 4. Guix pull starts using that
> >
> > A rolling guix pull is a rather bad idea for stability ;). Unlike
> > the main releases I think this can be done weekly or bi-monthly.  
> 
> With your solution, it's impossible to add security fixes, whereas
> it's possible to add them to a stable branch, I believe.

What I proposed was to separate the "stable" branch from security fixes
by using a security channel. Security fixes (grafts) would go to the
security channel, while normal updates would go to master, then stable
a bit latter.