Re: ‘core-updates’ is gone; long live ‘core-packages-team’!

[Janneke Nieuwenhuizen <janneke@gnu.org>]

Christopher Baines writes:

[cc: Efraim]

> Janneke Nieuwenhuizen <janneke@gnu.org> writes:
>
>> Maxim Cournoyer writes:
>>
>>> Sorry for reviving a 14 weeks old thread, I'm still catching up
>>> post-move :-).
>>
>> Ah that explains why I missed this...
>>
>>> Christopher Baines <mail@cbaines.net> writes:
[..]
>> We've been seeing a regular stream of `squash' commits fixing our and
>> eachother's patches and I'm keeping `core-packages-team' rebased
>> regularly and hope that we don't need to merge it once it's ready, but
>> can just push the final rebase.
>
> I think what you're doing is fine. the only thing I'd suggest to change
> is regarding branch naming. This isn't documented, but
> data.qa.guix.gnu.org (and QA) ignore branches where the name begins with
> wip-.
>
> So if as you say this branch is currently being worked on, but not quite
> ready to be merged, then I'd suggest naming it as wip-core-packages-team
> (or anything else beginning with wip-). That way, the data service will
> ignore it and can spend it's time looking at other branches/patch
> series.

Thanks, that's good to know/be reminded of.  However...this advise comes
a bit [too] late as I believe it's about time the build farm would have
a look at `core-packages-team', WYDT Efraim?.

So if `core-packages-team' is already being built, where can I see/use
the result[s] of that?  Up till now I've been doing all builds myself
and haven't seen any substitutes?

Greetings,
Janneke

-- 
Janneke Nieuwenhuizen <janneke@gnu.org>  | GNU LilyPond https://LilyPond.org
Freelance IT https://www.JoyOfSource.com | Avatar® https://AvatarAcademy.com