Hi, Marius Bakke <mba...@fastmail.com> skribis:
> Diego Nicola Barbato <dnbarb...@posteo.de> writes: [...] >>> I’ve reverted the patch in 5aa4d2dcf2f4f8786358feb45338893ed08a4cd9. >>> >>> Diego: I guess we can reinstate the patch “later”, once Shepherd 0.8 can >>> be considered widespread. >> >> I'm sorry I broke reconfigure and deploy. I didn't consider testing >> upgrading from before Shepherd 0.8 to after my change and I didn't even >> think of deploy. Going forth I'll leave messing with core functionality >> to the pros. > > Mistakes happen, don't worry about it. Yup! Plus, the person who reviewed the patch, undoubtedly an equally nice person, didn’t notice the issue either. :-) > One thing that would be really useful and can prevent such situations in > the future is to have a "system test" that tries to run reconfigure from > the latest released version of Guix (currently 1.1.0). > > There are already a few Shepherd tests in gnu/tests/base.scm and > gnu/tests/reconfigure.scm that can be used as inspiration. Yes. I was also wondering if it would make sense for services to somehow state the major+minor version they’re targeting. Ludo’.
