Andreas Enge <andr...@enge.fr> writes: > Well, sending everything to master seems quite impossible to me, and > it should be the same in Nix as in Guix. All the time we get patch > level updates to packages that are deep in the package graph and cause > enormous rebuilds.
Agree, let me rephrase: I think most things (where that is plausible) should go straight into master, and changes that cause mass rebuilds should be batched in something similar to nixpkgs' staging. Batching *topic-related* changes in feature branches seems strange to me. > and so on; here the only reasonable way forward seems to me to regroup > all the audio related changes, for instance, which will rebuild > essentially the same packages. But why group e.g. the audio-related things specifically? Nixpkgs uses a single staging branch for basically all changes that affect >=500 dependents, and that process seems to work well. For example, if there were separate audio/video tracks, I'd suppose that most packages depending on either are likely to depend on both. Likewise if there's something like "core" which includes libc, openssl and other such packages there is no point in separating them from audio/video, because changes in core will affect *everything* anyways. //V
