From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Kei Kebreau Subject: Re: [PATCH 0/1] Dbus update 1.10.12 for core-updates Date: Mon, 10 Oct 2016 15:30:12 -0400 Message-ID: <87r37ogfy3.fsf@openmailbox.org> References: <871szohy7j.fsf@openmailbox.org> <20161010183917.GA16280@jocasta.intra> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/signed; boundary="=-=-="; micalg=pgp-sha256; protocol="application/pgp-signature" Return-path: Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([2001:4830:134:3::10]:55544) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1btgHX-0006UJ-DF for guix-devel@gnu.org; Mon, 10 Oct 2016 15:30:40 -0400 Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1btgHU-0001Cq-1C for guix-devel@gnu.org; Mon, 10 Oct 2016 15:30:39 -0400 Received: from mail2.openmailbox.org ([62.4.1.33]:52691) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1btgHT-0001CO-Iu for guix-devel@gnu.org; Mon, 10 Oct 2016 15:30:35 -0400 In-Reply-To: <20161010183917.GA16280@jocasta.intra> (John Darrington's message of "Mon, 10 Oct 2016 20:39:17 +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: John Darrington Cc: guix-devel@gnu.org --=-=-= Content-Type: text/plain Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable John Darrington writes: > On Mon, Oct 10, 2016 at 02:10:24PM -0400, Kei Kebreau wrote: >=20=20=20=20=20=20 > Excuse my ignorance, but when is a patch considered significant enou= gh > to be updated on core-updates instead of master? Put another way, wh= at > is the purpose of core-updates? > > Core updates is for those things near the root of the dependency tree. > Changing these things causes a large amount of other things to be rebuilt. > Therefore, the core-updates branch is built very much less frequently than > master. > > J' In that case, I think that this patch can go into core-updates, since an updated dbus appears to require an amount of updates similar to that of some other packages updated in core-updates. The security threat from this package seems relatively low to me as well. I'd weigh more experienced opinions more heavily than my own, though. I'm still observing how core-updates works. :-) --=-=-= Content-Type: application/pgp-signature; name="signature.asc" -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v2 iQIcBAEBCAAGBQJX++xFAAoJEOal7jwZRnoN8G8QAMBLaSRwYSNHHum7zKmRc9pr EPKofxHtzWbNdMLfQLsgP67uNZet1r/6VVaIL3tTCm4wRDrKhLLAHW9PJ235Qptn 23CultdSQqwUGZXvi7OOafSJMa8jiCleyC0J1vOMbPTtMpNyjMtUNbJ247zXxxIT ptmc69QqZIEkP0Tx8OJ+KOnh6EOmFmILrQH8CXBQWOX+4o0V30GENGImNoKpjPXP 8HjhKI3BlwtrGvlVi04PRV0jvs/H5YdcIOUhlV82/BlOFGBj/MOQJmW29nZLywrN lg9Z+DGJb4uUtWWnmyofY3kmRHTmssWYlDAR1UVcks0yhu8SN2jrQJkEh3g9GWZN A/3O1ryhl1h7twq2a9dBPD1Nx7nSV4O71/5UrVVNuLX3IMYjnbtA7BDl1x5nsJcw bW33UcNYO1mRax408zSG7ckwDmPeVomcQy9enwnW5GOEKf/bPLDaLEod83IO80Kn OP/4HFKc7WrzKDzqrZGUlzCP45qoELsIsrpM5cEKbg7vpWuNli2ct1U2HoFvaYBV rNi6YfDNB1Jv02Lk1BAWxQYk2V8orHZlavOfSw3R/fM7XzJ2KSir8uCQEiTuXKHJ UB1xK2IYVTTsJq1qTnXJCc6m8RzlCHRBWIyB4yJ11XYyqtU+DpII5uVUS6s4q0gt KryLGKfY41/D1GCQQs9O =M1tI -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --=-=-=--