Re: State of core-updates

[Maxim Cournoyer]

Hi Andreas,

Andreas Enge <andreas@enge.fr> writes:

> Hello Maxim,
>
> Am Tue, Mar 14, 2023 at 11:50:12AM -0400 schrieb Maxim Cournoyer:
>> That looks promising.  Should we spun a differently named branch to
>> avoid people sending core-updates change?  This was discussed in the
>> past and agreed to (main branches do not *freeze* themselves), instead
>> we use git to branch to our will.
>
> well, I consider core-updates to be frozen, people should not send any
> more patches there unless they repair things that are currently broken
> (and, one may add, a regression to master). I do not expect this to
> include any world rebuilding changes any more.
>
> And then the goal will be to not have a core-updates branch in the future,
> but separate feature branches as discussed at the Guix days.
>
> So the aim is to merge core-updates to master, and then to delete this
> branch once and for all. (Of course, there can then be a new feature
> branch "core-team" or something like this, for changes concerning the
> core of the system.)

Thanks for the explanations.  I'm out of the loop, not having been able
to attend physically the last Guix Days event.  Was there a recap of the
discussions posted somewhere?  Was the freeze announce somewhere?  I
wholly missed that, and I try to pay attention.

> So I think there is no need to branch from the branch!
> (And just as a reminder, let us not forget the staging branch that needs
> a similar treatment.)

OK!  We could probably merge staging into master and be done already.

-- 
Thanks,
Maxim