From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([209.51.188.92]:42382) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1h9v6u-0003Lp-UP for guix-patches@gnu.org; Fri, 29 Mar 2019 13:16:10 -0400 Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1h9v6t-0008Qr-6m for guix-patches@gnu.org; Fri, 29 Mar 2019 13:16:08 -0400 Received: from debbugs.gnu.org ([209.51.188.43]:50703) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtps (TLS1.0:RSA_AES_128_CBC_SHA1:16) (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1h9v6o-0008PL-1W for guix-patches@gnu.org; Fri, 29 Mar 2019 13:16:04 -0400 Received: from Debian-debbugs by debbugs.gnu.org with local (Exim 4.84_2) (envelope-from ) id 1h9v6n-00066b-Ms for guix-patches@gnu.org; Fri, 29 Mar 2019 13:16:01 -0400 Subject: [bug#34959] Acknowledgement ([PATCH] Add Multiple Common Lisp Packages) Resent-Message-ID: From: Katherine Cox-Buday References: <87pnqh4acd.fsf@gmail.com> <87lg15493r.fsf@gmail.com> <87pnqg616m.fsf@elephly.net> <87mule3nm8.fsf@gmail.com> <87o95u20iv.fsf@elephly.net> Date: Fri, 29 Mar 2019 12:15:38 -0500 In-Reply-To: <87o95u20iv.fsf@elephly.net> (Ricardo Wurmus's message of "Thu, 28 Mar 2019 21:43:04 +0100") Message-ID: <87r2ap1u11.fsf@gmail.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable 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 Cc: 34959@debbugs.gnu.org Ricardo Wurmus writes: > Hi Katherine, > >>> We usually expect one commit per independent change. Could you please >>> split up this patch into multiple commits? You can group package >>> variants like =E2=80=9Csbcl-trivial-backtrace=E2=80=9D and =E2=80=9Ccl-= trivial-backtrace=E2=80=9D, but >>> separate packages generally each should have their own commit. >> >> This will be a non-trivial amount of work, and these will have to be >> chained against each other since this patch forms a dependency graph. >> Given that, can you discuss the benefits of splitting these into >> separate commits? Also is it multiple commits, one patch? Or multiple >> patches? > > You can generate one patch per commit with =E2=80=9Cgit format-patch=E2= =80=9D. Separate > commits allow us to use the git history to our advantage. We use git > not only do we track changes but semantic units of change. We decided > on the unit to be individual packages. > > One effect of this is that the summary line of each commit can be exact. > When reading the commit log this keeps surprises to a minimum. > > If you are an Emacs user I recommend using the Yasnippet =E2=80=9Cadd=E2= =80=9D snippet > for quickly generating commit messages for the staged diff. This makes > it much easier to create the expected commit messages, especially when > there are many commits. (I use this all the time for R package updates > and additions.) This makes sense. Thank you for the explanation. >>>> +(define-public sbcl-trivial-backtrace >>>> + (let ((commit-hash "ca81c011b86424a381a7563cea3b924f24e6fbeb")) >>>> + (package >>>> + (name "sbcl-trivial-backtrace") >>>> + (synopsis "Portable simple API to work with backtraces in Common >>>> Lisp") >>>> + (description "On of the many things that didn't quite get into the >>>> Common Lisp standard was how to get a Lisp to output its call stack >>>> when something has gone wrong. As such, each Lisp has developed its >>>> own notion of what to display, how to display it, and what sort of >>>> arguments can be used to customize it. trivial-backtrace is a simple >>>> solution to generating a backtrace portably.") >>> >>> Please break up long lines like this. Please run =E2=80=9C./pre-inst-e= nv guix >>> lint sbcl-trivial-backtrace=E2=80=9D, which will tell you about this pr= oblem. >> >> I did run linting, but I wasn't sure how to break up description >> strings. If I just do line-breaks, will that be OK? > > Yes. Line breaks are the right tool here. In Emacs you can do M-q > while point is on the description string to break up the lines > in the expected fashion. Will do; thank you. >>>> + (source >>>> + (origin >>>> + (method git-fetch) >>>> + (uri (git-reference >>>> + (url "https://github.com/gwkkwg/trivial-backtrace.git") >>>> + (commit commit-hash))) >>> >>> Throughout you can use =E2=80=9Ccommit=E2=80=9D instead of =E2=80=9Ccom= mit-hash=E2=80=9D =E2=80=94 there is no >>> naming conflict. >> >> Yes, I know. I preferred `commit-hash` because that's what it is -- not >> an actual commit. Do we standardize this much, down to variable names? > > That=E2=80=99s fine. I guessed that you used =E2=80=9Ccommit-hash=E2=80= =9D to avoid a name > clash, so I clarified that this is not necessary. > > Personally, I think it=E2=80=99s best to stick with the established conve= ntions > as it makes working on Guix less surprising. OK, I'll use the standard. Thanks for taking the time to explain. It is very much appreciated. --=20 Katherine