From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Nikita Karetnikov Subject: Re: Generation 0 Date: Wed, 25 Sep 2013 22:07:11 +0400 Message-ID: <87siws22sw.fsf@karetnikov.org> References: <87vc2o4qwc.fsf@gnu.org> <87y57kljro.fsf@karetnikov.org> <87hae81uvo.fsf@gnu.org> <87li2oslzh.fsf_-_@karetnikov.org> <87hadcr4sh.fsf_-_@karetnikov.org> <8738ow5zif.fsf@gnu.org> <87vc1r6nu0.fsf@karetnikov.org> <87eh8ebdba.fsf@gnu.org> <871u4d97ku.fsf@karetnikov.org> <87vc1pnjzz.fsf@gnu.org> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/signed; boundary="=-=-="; micalg=pgp-sha1; protocol="application/pgp-signature" Return-path: Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([2001:4830:134:3::10]:52920) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1VOtPy-00028j-Ac for guix-devel@gnu.org; Wed, 25 Sep 2013 14:02:31 -0400 Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1VOtPx-00005o-4k for guix-devel@gnu.org; Wed, 25 Sep 2013 14:02:30 -0400 In-Reply-To: <87vc1pnjzz.fsf@gnu.org> ("Ludovic =?utf-8?Q?Court=C3=A8s=22'?= =?utf-8?Q?s?= message of "Wed, 25 Sep 2013 14:50:08 +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-bounces+gcggd-guix-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org To: Ludovic =?utf-8?Q?Court=C3=A8s?= Cc: guix-devel@gnu.org --=-=-= Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable >> What about these patches? Should the first patch also test the >> following case? >> >> + (let ((numbers (generation-numbers profile))) >> + (if (equal? numbers '(0)) >> + (exit 1) >> + (for-each list-generation numbers)))) > The first patch below already contains that snippet, so I=E2=80=99m not s= ure > what you mean. There are two cases: 1. A generation does not exist. 2. The profile points to the zeroth generation, and there are no other generations. =E2=80=98tests/guix-package.sh=E2=80=99 tests the first case. Should we te= st the second case too? What would be the best way to do so? Note that you can=E2=80=99t specify the pattern in that case because of the (string-null? pattern) bit. --=-=-= Content-Type: application/pgp-signature -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.4.10 (GNU/Linux) iQIcBAEBAgAGBQJSQyZSAAoJEM+IQzI9IQ38Rf4P/3OxHWP6U42tqYw/MC4UDPKO 1/VITDTvI83byuqkyCz1C6UE7fHoRnMuOK12/jez5R3+2DXiwiBcSVoHbcWEd+rh YjcKynoQwxFEAPUV/Mr4nwosuupctLyDVn+JFxW1uuHsvmICbxxg+9IqmbpkoWfE dZSV+uUw50tqjCrSDNOcN8QJ2NR3AViyQWdNa739TN45NeJYbTOGNfsoYGQFiQbE NnWXuzxQgiulhWU3bRyXmSMrD7DWCRH0v+v/BPB3E8pbB1zZXWbUDBJTeN+V7HnM y2y7A4nVk34qojePox3xSmfw3fkjqzB6mhcUJOm/A0Yv72rPRBuE9Y4EWCDJfBex AY1oEP0tKR5w5NefCu+5iFXeJoqHaZx/uQ5lBFV0fEAHPDFJSYl0H8Z9UMGhT28M IxwODiKlyx5ypY1SbsmSGtmhFedG8q0JWUBrPhK8/1XhSWbI8TlIyNd9L3jLN7lR 440uzRVHtVQgoTTI8kTkIqtu8Jh0rTLgC+6j17eMgQiH5w4hSon1Dcad51AjGjtZ FOt+KDLrMGH6n/AYA6xBEARUOqrcDUmOueE4JE49O1OWU+MoY3WIcfqKyNERh+7W mejKXPHwd/GCmlqI7WmxTxPG8yA1SYnemE0X+3KAaHJ5+Qd3eWQewnxmTLVDbLg5 auQfNPzgDEvcx/2U2L8u =8cJ2 -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --=-=-=--