Re: Release v1.4 (or 2.0): process and schedule ?

[Maxim Cournoyer]

Hello Chris,

Chris Marusich <cmmarusich@gmail.com> writes:

> Maxim Cournoyer <maxim.cournoyer@gmail.com> writes:
>
>> About the current status, I'm nearing on pushing a version-1.4.0 branch
>> which is based on master with a few more (core-ish) updates.  There's
>> still a few days ahead of that, so if you manage to get many of this
>> kind of problems fixed & merged in master they can easily be included in
>> the next release.
>
> There is a problem that currently prevents "guix pull" from succeeding
> for powerpc64le-linux on master.  I'd like to resolve it before the
> release if possible.  The problem is here, including a patch to fix it:
>
> https://debbugs.gnu.org/cgi/bugreport.cgi?bug=52940
>
> This patch is relatively simple, but it will rebuild many packages for
> all architectures because it modifies guix/build/gremlin.scm, which is
> used by the gnu-build-system.  How can I integrate this change into the
> 1.4.0 release?
>
> Normally I would commit such a change to core-updates.  However, if I do
> that, then the change probably won't make it into master or the
> version-1.4.0 branch in time.  Is there an opportunity to put the change
> somewhere so that it will make it into the release?  I'm not sure.
>
> Here's my proposal.  Since the bug may very well be benign, I could
> apply a simple work-around to master that just skips the failing test on
> powerpc64le-linux.  I could then apply the actual fix to core-updates.
> Later, after master has been merged to core-updates, I could re-enable
> the test on core-updates.  This would allow "guix pull" to succeed for
> powerpc64le-linux on master without rebuilding the world, and the
> correct fix would still be applied on core-updates for a later release.
>
> Do you think that would work?

Since the version-1.4.0 branch I've been polishing locally still hasn't
been published nor built, there's still time to apply the patch without
any consideration for world rebuilds to that branch (at this point we
want the changes to be low risk ones though, but that sounds like one).

Thanks,

Maxim