Hi, Munyoki Kilyungi <m...@bonfacemunyoki.com> writes:
> Hi Maxim! > > Maxim Cournoyer <maxim.courno...@gmail.com> > aliandika: > >> Hi, >> >> Munyoki Kilyungi <m...@bonfacemunyoki.com> writes: >> >>> "jgart" <jg...@dismail.de> aliandika: >>> >>>> Hi Guixers, >>>> >>>> I was recently reviewing a patch by a contributor and was discussing the >>>> notion of preferring upstream to PyPI when tests are missing on PyPI. >>>> >>> What's the policy on this. Shouldn't we prefer >>> upstream over PyPI? Sometimes, PyPI versions lag >>> behind upstream versions. >> >> There's no written policy about it at this time, but I think it's common >> knowledge in Guix that we try hard to: >> >> 1. Unbundle dependencies (that one is documented) >> 2. Run test suites (that one isn't) >> >> We could hint at this globally in the contributing section, and perhaps >> expound with more specific details in the Python Modules contributing >> section, mentioning that when the PyPI source archive lacks tests, >> fetching from the git repository should be preferred. >> >> Another thing we could do is default to fetch from git for the Python >> importer. >> > Thanks for this info. I'm dedicating an hour of > my day from work to try to contrib to the > eco-system with Jgarte's help. What's, if I may > naively ask, the process for documenting this > knowledge? I can take a stub at trying to > document this and asking for reviews. That's a pretty cool workplace you've got :-). The process would be the same as for authoring any other changes to Guix. You'll want to 'make doc/guix.info' to test your changes (or just 'make'), and you can review the new work with 'info doc/guix.info'. 'info Texinfo' can be used as a handy reference for the Texinfo specifics. -- Thanks, Maxim