From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from mp0 ([2001:41d0:2:4a6f::]) (using TLSv1.3 with cipher TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 (256/256 bits)) by ms11 with LMTPS id AFCdMJK+s1+8KwAA0tVLHw (envelope-from ) for ; Tue, 17 Nov 2020 12:14:10 +0000 Received: from aspmx1.migadu.com ([2001:41d0:2:4a6f::]) (using TLSv1.3 with cipher TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 (256/256 bits)) by mp0 with LMTPS id 6Nl1LJK+s1+ueAAA1q6Kng (envelope-from ) for ; Tue, 17 Nov 2020 12:14:10 +0000 Received: from lists.gnu.org (lists.gnu.org [209.51.188.17]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by aspmx1.migadu.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 6F82E940367 for ; Tue, 17 Nov 2020 12:14:10 +0000 (UTC) Received: from localhost ([::1]:57054 helo=lists1p.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1kezs9-0001wX-Aa for larch@yhetil.org; Tue, 17 Nov 2020 07:14:09 -0500 Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([2001:470:142:3::10]:57998) by lists.gnu.org with esmtps (TLS1.2:ECDHE_RSA_AES_256_GCM_SHA384:256) (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1kezrz-0001wK-Ss for guix-devel@gnu.org; Tue, 17 Nov 2020 07:14:00 -0500 Received: from pelzflorian.de ([5.45.111.108]:55920 helo=mail.pelzflorian.de) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtps (TLS1.2:ECDHE_RSA_AES_256_GCM_SHA384:256) (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1kezrx-0001k1-N0; Tue, 17 Nov 2020 07:13:59 -0500 Received: from pelzflorian.localdomain (unknown [5.45.111.108]) by mail.pelzflorian.de (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 8601B3605A8; Tue, 17 Nov 2020 13:13:53 +0100 (CET) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=simple/simple; d=pelzflorian.de; s=mail; t=1605615233; bh=BvCGFBUb9dB6JXpoZw4UTzvMSUR7eHKWSmrYUZZm2QY=; h=Date:From:To:Cc:Subject:References:In-Reply-To; b=aofJDjh/JygAO2ZymJZFUXFu6VKHo4RUXjyjYN/FB7UKzov3nW3QdICFoUdkvzogO s14snQhOXQzV632cupFAwTsx2CEi7jsa88NB81PSY8hsL0Dcaeelkip+JZBsReLL9w L8vMByTBhyu7PmwwsYIcnEW1jXZgheiyGiiZfS3A= Date: Tue, 17 Nov 2020 13:13:43 +0100 From: "pelzflorian (Florian Pelz)" To: Mathieu Othacehe Subject: Re: GNU Guix 1.2.0rc1 available for testing! Message-ID: <20201117121343.bhg4o3qrzyjolyqu@pelzflorian.localdomain> References: <87d00hchij.fsf@gnu.org> <20201115191618.zuvkz65o3kcahfoz@pelzflorian.localdomain> <874klqb82u.fsf@gnu.org> <20201115231643.7mslq2sjzliv4nfd@pelzflorian.localdomain> <87v9e5ll7a.fsf@gnu.org> <20201116114708.lpq2ildggzusbqqu@pelzflorian.localdomain> <871rgsz786.fsf@gnu.org> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <871rgsz786.fsf@gnu.org> Received-SPF: pass client-ip=5.45.111.108; envelope-from=pelzflorian@pelzflorian.de; helo=mail.pelzflorian.de X-detected-operating-system: by eggs.gnu.org: First seen = 2020/11/17 07:13:54 X-ACL-Warn: Detected OS = Linux 2.2.x-3.x [generic] [fuzzy] X-Spam_score_int: -20 X-Spam_score: -2.1 X-Spam_bar: -- X-Spam_report: (-2.1 / 5.0 requ) BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_EF=-0.1, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001 autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no X-Spam_action: no action X-BeenThere: guix-devel@gnu.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.23 Precedence: list List-Id: "Development of GNU Guix and the GNU System distribution." List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Cc: guix-devel@gnu.org Errors-To: guix-devel-bounces+larch=yhetil.org@gnu.org Sender: "Guix-devel" X-Scanner: ns3122888.ip-94-23-21.eu Authentication-Results: aspmx1.migadu.com; dkim=fail (headers rsa verify failed) header.d=pelzflorian.de header.s=mail header.b=aofJDjh/; dmarc=none; spf=pass (aspmx1.migadu.com: domain of guix-devel-bounces@gnu.org designates 209.51.188.17 as permitted sender) smtp.mailfrom=guix-devel-bounces@gnu.org X-Spam-Score: -0.01 X-TUID: esLaFz2k1dAd On Tue, Nov 17, 2020 at 10:02:33AM +0100, Mathieu Othacehe wrote: > That's good news! Here's a more complete patch that I intend to push on > the 1.2.0 branch. It logs the time spent waiting for disk > synchronization. > > It would be great if you could test it one more time, so that we know if > 4 seconds is enough or if we should use an even higher delay. > > Thanks again, > > Mathieu It succeeded three times in a row. Regards, Florian