From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
From: ludo@gnu.org (Ludovic =?UTF-8?Q?Court=C3=A8s?=)
Subject: bug#32022: bug#22629: =?UTF-8?Q?=E2=80=9CStable=E2=80=9D?= branch
Date: Fri, 31 Aug 2018 15:01:52 +0200
Message-ID: <87k1o6pu4f.fsf@gnu.org>
References: <87vb5vsffd.fsf@gnu.org> <87pny2iks2.fsf@gnu.org>
	<877ekagtg9.fsf@netris.org> <87zhx5msfl.fsf@pompo.co>
	<87lg8pccys.fsf_-_@netris.org> <87zhx59gh3.fsf@elephly.net>
	<m1wos82y70.fsf@ordinateur-de-catherine--konrad.home>
	<875zzs9wzl.fsf@netris.org> <m1d0u0qi4v.fsf@fastmail.net>
	<874lfcxd2v.fsf_-_@gnu.org> <87wos8lzcj.fsf@pompo.co>
	<878t4nqzqv.fsf@gnu.org> <m1h8jaq3h0.fsf@fastmail.net>
	<874lfarh6w.fsf@gnu.org> <m1k1o6akr4.fsf@fastmail.net>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Return-path: <bug-guix-bounces+gcggb-bug-guix=m.gmane.org@gnu.org>
Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([2001:4830:134:3::10]:48616)
	by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71)
	(envelope-from <Debian-debbugs@debbugs.gnu.org>) id 1fvj4r-0002Ad-3U
	for bug-guix@gnu.org; Fri, 31 Aug 2018 09:03:09 -0400
Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71)
	(envelope-from <Debian-debbugs@debbugs.gnu.org>) id 1fvj4p-0002SC-0Q
	for bug-guix@gnu.org; Fri, 31 Aug 2018 09:03:04 -0400
Received: from debbugs.gnu.org ([208.118.235.43]:34878)
	by eggs.gnu.org with esmtps (TLS1.0:RSA_AES_128_CBC_SHA1:16)
	(Exim 4.71) (envelope-from <Debian-debbugs@debbugs.gnu.org>)
	id 1fvj4o-0002Rn-SX
	for bug-guix@gnu.org; Fri, 31 Aug 2018 09:03:02 -0400
Received: from Debian-debbugs by debbugs.gnu.org with local (Exim 4.84_2)
	(envelope-from <Debian-debbugs@debbugs.gnu.org>) id 1fvj4o-0002iM-Nz
	for bug-guix@gnu.org; Fri, 31 Aug 2018 09:03:02 -0400
Sender: "Debbugs-submit" <debbugs-submit-bounces@debbugs.gnu.org>
Resent-Message-ID: <handler.32022.B32022.153572053910331@debbugs.gnu.org>
In-Reply-To: <m1k1o6akr4.fsf@fastmail.net> (Konrad Hinsen's message of "Fri,
	31 Aug 2018 12:33:19 +0200")
List-Id: Bug reports for GNU Guix <bug-guix.gnu.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/options/bug-guix>,
	<mailto:bug-guix-request@gnu.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://lists.gnu.org/archive/html/bug-guix/>
List-Post: <mailto:bug-guix@gnu.org>
List-Help: <mailto:bug-guix-request@gnu.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/bug-guix>,
	<mailto:bug-guix-request@gnu.org?subject=subscribe>
Errors-To: bug-guix-bounces+gcggb-bug-guix=m.gmane.org@gnu.org
Sender: "bug-Guix" <bug-guix-bounces+gcggb-bug-guix=m.gmane.org@gnu.org>
To: Konrad Hinsen <konrad.hinsen@fastmail.net>
Cc: 26608@debbugs.gnu.org, 22629@debbugs.gnu.org, 32022@debbugs.gnu.org

Hello,

Konrad Hinsen <konrad.hinsen@fastmail.net> skribis:

>> What do you mean by =E2=80=9Climit it to channels=E2=80=9D?  =E2=80=98%d=
efault-channels=E2=80=99 is an
>> alias for the official Guix channel (IOW, Guix itself.)
>
> Fine, but I rarely care about all of Guix, or all of any other channel.
> I care about the small subset of packages that I actually use.
>
> Better yet, with a per-manifest/profile approach, I could put my most
> critical packages in a special profile and get updates for them more
> quickly, while still working only with substitutes.

Sure!  The hypothetical procedure I gave can perform arbitrary checks;
it could be passed a manifest.

> BTW, just out of curiosity: for how many commits in Guix history all
> packages could be built successfully? Is that the rule of the exception?

We never have 100% of successful builds.  Of course we do our best to
keep the failure rate low, but sometimes there are unpopular packages
that remain broken for some time, or there are packages for which we
forgot to exclude some systems via =E2=80=98supported-systems=E2=80=99, and=
 of course
there=E2=80=99s unintended breakage.

Ludo=E2=80=99.