From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: ludo@gnu.org (Ludovic =?utf-8?Q?Court=C3=A8s?=) Subject: Re: Planning for the next release Date: Thu, 11 May 2017 11:00:16 +0200 Message-ID: <87fugbvkdb.fsf@gnu.org> References: <87wpb7ym78.fsf@gnu.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]:57928) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1d8jxQ-0003qo-Ph for guix-devel@gnu.org; Thu, 11 May 2017 05:00:25 -0400 Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1d8jxM-0004Mo-RU for guix-devel@gnu.org; Thu, 11 May 2017 05:00:24 -0400 Received: from fencepost.gnu.org ([2001:4830:134:3::e]:48281) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1d8jxM-0004Mk-O8 for guix-devel@gnu.org; Thu, 11 May 2017 05:00:20 -0400 Received: from [193.50.110.138] (port=34700 helo=ribbon) by fencepost.gnu.org with esmtpsa (TLS1.2:RSA_AES_256_CBC_SHA1:256) (Exim 4.82) (envelope-from ) id 1d8jxM-0003YW-34 for guix-devel@gnu.org; Thu, 11 May 2017 05:00:20 -0400 In-Reply-To: <87wpb7ym78.fsf@gnu.org> ("Ludovic \=\?utf-8\?Q\?Court\=C3\=A8s\=22'\?\= \=\?utf-8\?Q\?s\?\= message of "Thu, 30 Mar 2017 14:37:47 +0200") 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: guix-devel Hello Guix! ludo@gnu.org (Ludovic Court=C3=A8s) skribis: > It=E2=80=99s time to plan for the next release! Here=E2=80=99s what we m= aintainers > think should be done for the next release, which would hopefully happen > within less than a month: > > 1. =E2=80=98core-updates=E2=80=99 merged. We=E2=80=99re almost there! > > 2. =E2=80=98wip-installer=E2=80=99 retested, and probably merged. > > I think the prerequisite for it would be to do some more testing. > Last time people reported glitches here and there but John has > done quite a bit of work since then. John: what about doing > another round of tests? > > In the installation image, we should probably make the installer > optional and mark it as =E2=80=9Cbeta=E2=80=9D or something like th= at. That will > leave us time to iron out remaining issues, and will avoid having > people expect a rock-solid Debian-style installer. > > As far as review is concerned, we can probably do a quick and > lightweight review process since that=E2=80=99s quite a big chunk o= f code > and we don=E2=80=99t want the branch to block indefinitely. So we = can do > that quick process, and then incrementally improve it if needed. > I think it=E2=80=99s a reasonable approach given that the installer= is > mostly an independent component. > > John, everyone: thoughts? > > 3. UEFI support documented and possibly improved. > > We can certainly document the UEFI setup and add the /boot/efi > partition in some of the =E2=80=98operating-system=E2=80=99 example= s. > > The more difficult part is the installation: do we need to make a > second, UEFI-specific, installation image? When I installed > GuixSD on UEFI, I booted our installation image as =E2=80=9Clegacy= =E2=80=9D, but > then GRUB would default to a legacy install, not a UEFI install: > > https://lists.gnu.org/archive/html/guix-devel/2016-12/msg00799.ht= ml > > I=E2=80=99m not sure exactly what needs to be done. Thoughts? > > 4. Fix low-hanging fruits at ; your help > welcome! > > Please share your thoughts! With UEFI (almost) ready, Guile 2.2 in the house, and =E2=80=9Cmake release= =E2=80=9D, should we aim for next week (like Wed. 17th)? Can we focus on polishing the remaining bits and testing? If the schedule turns out to be too tight, we could move to the week after. Thoughts? Ludo=E2=80=99.