From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Ben Woodcroft Subject: Re: Releasing 0.9.1 Date: Sun, 7 Feb 2016 22:13:47 +1000 Message-ID: <56B734FB.7000709@uq.edu.au> References: <87d1sbi827.fsf@gnu.org> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Return-path: Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([2001:4830:134:3::10]:35764) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1aSOE5-0000G7-Op for guix-devel@gnu.org; Sun, 07 Feb 2016 07:14:02 -0500 Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1aSOE0-0002Xd-NB for guix-devel@gnu.org; Sun, 07 Feb 2016 07:14:01 -0500 In-Reply-To: <87d1sbi827.fsf@gnu.org> List-Id: "Development of GNU Guix and the GNU System distribution." List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Errors-To: guix-devel-bounces+gcggd-guix-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Sender: guix-devel-bounces+gcggd-guix-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org To: =?UTF-8?Q?Ludovic_Court=c3=a8s?= , Guix-devel Hi, On 05/02/16 23:46, Ludovic Court=C3=A8s wrote: [..] > =E2=80=A2 Possibly the GitHub updater, which seemed pretty much read= y. Ben? Revisiting your comments on that patch Ludo the only thing that stands=20 out is: >[Ricardo] proposed recently to pass a package object instead of a=20 package name to =E2=80=98latest-release=E2=80=99. We should do that ideal= ly before this=20 patch goes in, or otherwise soon. Is there any update for this Ricardo? Do we just go ahead and use the=20 old style for the time being? > > Anything else? ruby-updater? Does someone mind reviewing the patch please? The thread=20 went a bit off-track, I think the original patch is still relevant. https://lists.gnu.org/archive/html/guix-devel/2016-01/msg00004.html Thanks, ben