From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
From: ludo@gnu.org (Ludovic =?utf-8?Q?Court=C3=A8s?=)
Subject: Re: Releasing 0.9.1
Date: Sun, 07 Feb 2016 21:44:19 +0100
Message-ID: <87lh6ws124.fsf@gnu.org>
References: <87d1sbi827.fsf@gnu.org> <56B734FB.7000709@uq.edu.au>
	<877figwusz.fsf@elephly.net>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Return-path: <guix-devel-bounces+gcggd-guix-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org>
Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([2001:4830:134:3::10]:52079)
	by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71)
	(envelope-from <ludo@gnu.org>) id 1aSWC1-0002lC-MF
	for guix-devel@gnu.org; Sun, 07 Feb 2016 15:44:26 -0500
Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71)
	(envelope-from <ludo@gnu.org>) id 1aSWBy-0001iZ-AV
	for guix-devel@gnu.org; Sun, 07 Feb 2016 15:44:25 -0500
In-Reply-To: <877figwusz.fsf@elephly.net> (Ricardo Wurmus's message of "Sun,
	07 Feb 2016 13:48:12 +0100")
List-Id: "Development of GNU Guix and the GNU System distribution."
	<guix-devel.gnu.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/options/guix-devel>,
	<mailto:guix-devel-request@gnu.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://lists.gnu.org/archive/html/guix-devel>
List-Post: <mailto:guix-devel@gnu.org>
List-Help: <mailto:guix-devel-request@gnu.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/guix-devel>,
	<mailto:guix-devel-request@gnu.org?subject=subscribe>
Errors-To: guix-devel-bounces+gcggd-guix-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org
Sender: guix-devel-bounces+gcggd-guix-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org
To: Ricardo Wurmus <rekado@elephly.net>
Cc: Guix-devel <guix-devel@gnu.org>

Ricardo Wurmus <rekado@elephly.net> skribis:

> Ben Woodcroft <b.woodcroft@uq.edu.au> writes:

[...]

>>  >[Ricardo] proposed recently to pass a package object instead of a=20
>> package name to =E2=80=98latest-release=E2=80=99. We should do that idea=
lly before this=20
>> patch goes in, or otherwise soon.
>>
>> Is there any update for this Ricardo? Do we just go ahead and use the=20
>> old style for the time being?
>
> Oh, I dropped the ball there.  It=E2=80=99s very simple to do this, but I=
 don=E2=80=99t
> think I can do it today, I=E2=80=99m afraid.  I can try to do it tomorrow=
, but I
> don=E2=80=99t think it should block the GitHub updater.
>
> I could easily patch the GitHub updater along with all the other
> updaters that would need to be adapted, so my vote is for using the old
> style for now and switching to package objects soon thereafter.

Fine with me!

Ben: can you post the latest version of the patch?  Or was it already
OK?

Ludo=E2=80=99.