From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Nicolas Goaziou Subject: Re: 01/01: gnu: Add rclone. Date: Wed, 28 Nov 2018 12:23:26 +0100 Message-ID: <87bm69saxd.fsf@nicolasgoaziou.fr> References: <20181127204001.24071.37439@vcs0.savannah.gnu.org> <20181127204002.3CA6B209DD@vcs0.savannah.gnu.org> <87sgzl92yf.fsf@netris.org> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Return-path: Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([2001:4830:134:3::10]:42998) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1gRxvm-0002cv-6e for guix-devel@gnu.org; Wed, 28 Nov 2018 06:22:59 -0500 Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1gRxvj-0001y3-Ih for guix-devel@gnu.org; Wed, 28 Nov 2018 06:22:58 -0500 Received: from relay9-d.mail.gandi.net ([217.70.183.199]:49981) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtps (TLS1.0:DHE_RSA_AES_256_CBC_SHA1:32) (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1gRxvj-0001Ay-Ar for guix-devel@gnu.org; Wed, 28 Nov 2018 06:22:55 -0500 In-Reply-To: <87sgzl92yf.fsf@netris.org> (Mark H. Weaver's message of "Wed, 28 Nov 2018 00:37:49 -0500") 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" To: Mark H Weaver Cc: guix-devel@gnu.org Hello, Mark H Weaver writes: > Did you test this? Yes, of course I tested it. I was using it for my own needs before sending the patch for review. I obviously fumbled somehow when I sent the mail, but I still do not get when or why. > There's a syntax error in the code, such that it not only fails to > build, but it fails even to produce a _derivation_ describing the build. > Unfortunately, this kind of error in any package causes problems for our > build farm, which currently assumes that this kind of error will not > occur. Such errors not only cause the individual build to fail, but > moreover for the entire process that generates a new CI "evaluation" to > fail, which effectively prevents subsequent package updates on that > branch from being built until the problem is corrected. I suggest to add a check, if possible, for that kind of mistake =E2=80=94 e= .g., check if `arguments' value is a valid property list =E2=80=94 because forge= tting a line in a leaf package should not cause the whole build farm to die. > I reverted this commit. OK. I'll fix the commit. > Please be careful when pushing to master. I sincerely hope you're not suggesting I'm not careful when I send a patch or push it to master. You must know carefulness is not strictly equivalent to perfectness. Not quite. Thank you for fixing my mistake. Regards, --=20 Nicolas Goaziou