From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([2001:470:142:3::10]:36955) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1ioWbj-0005Xc-0L for guix-patches@gnu.org; Mon, 06 Jan 2020 12:56:04 -0500 Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1ioWbi-0006JF-13 for guix-patches@gnu.org; Mon, 06 Jan 2020 12:56:02 -0500 Received: from debbugs.gnu.org ([209.51.188.43]:40688) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtps (TLS1.0:RSA_AES_128_CBC_SHA1:16) (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1ioWbh-0006J2-UZ for guix-patches@gnu.org; Mon, 06 Jan 2020 12:56:01 -0500 Received: from Debian-debbugs by debbugs.gnu.org with local (Exim 4.84_2) (envelope-from ) id 1ioWbh-0001My-TS for guix-patches@gnu.org; Mon, 06 Jan 2020 12:56:01 -0500 Subject: [bug#38824] [PATCH] gnu: mercurial: Update to 5.2.1. Resent-Message-ID: From: Marius Bakke In-Reply-To: <87pnfy71dt.fsf@elephly.net> References: <162d0ac10569d0aa3ba451a1ab2b115667ba6dc8.camel@gnu.org> <8736cw16uh.fsf@gnu.org> <0e2a74312eba3617dda3613038d16e76c55c4e0b.camel@gnu.org> <87h81ah1in.fsf@lafreniere.xyz> <87pnfy71dt.fsf@elephly.net> Date: Mon, 06 Jan 2020 18:55:25 +0100 Message-ID: <87h81831wy.fsf@devup.no> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/signed; boundary="=-=-="; micalg=pgp-sha512; protocol="application/pgp-signature" List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Errors-To: guix-patches-bounces+kyle=kyleam.com@gnu.org Sender: "Guix-patches" To: Ricardo Wurmus , joseph@lafreniere.xyz Cc: 38824@debbugs.gnu.org, brettg@gnu.org --=-=-= Content-Type: text/plain Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Ricardo Wurmus writes: > LaFreniere, Joseph writes: > >> I think that for now the options are to >> 1. continue using Python2 for Mercurial; >> 2. use Python3 but disable all tests, as Janssen's patch suggests; >> 3. use Python3 but disable the known-failing tests; or >> 4. hold off on updating the package until upstream supports=20 >> Python3 across its entire test suite. >> >> Of those three, I am most in favor of the third option. I would=20 >> be glad to submit a patch that implements it if there is agreement=20 >> to take that direction. > > I agree that option 3 (with a link to the upstream discussion) is the > right way to go forward. That seems orthogonal to the discussed patch though, seeing as tests have been disabled in Mercurial since forever. --=-=-= Content-Type: application/pgp-signature; name="signature.asc" -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- iQEzBAEBCgAdFiEEu7At3yzq9qgNHeZDoqBt8qM6VPoFAl4TdI0ACgkQoqBt8qM6 VPpabggAjw2K7ZWb5HKhKQquLEHId+t3imr63cBz6+LvjBA4ufbdTuGmJTdmvHj1 oq6Gxzjrw0l3DYGOWn2EaB5CAzQM7cGcuorURtpCW4fFkR8/mODKBRl7OahIuvV3 0V7eM071NZulBLsdem0iJWFE/LENO92JnQgn+4r318tPdoi3mEGGr9gsuCBruL65 dsplsIQ2azXeTv/gMFlDO/W14gCQgoqRZF5D1Wrbsnr9ov0S1XFd12XSn6Kg+eq4 lHZS2+0b04XWsr32TUg7WZvO6CZRVy/vhpwOIyJmG/kP5GHQMzcNUW3PBcnSQ58R bpIZZ1rM1HjFtKLYzdM5QtXwsIH8tA== =wZO/ -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --=-=-=--