Hi Vincent, Vincent Ambo <taz...@yandex-team.ru> writes:
> 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. A staging and a core-updates branches is exactly what we used to have before the advent of teams and topic branches, and in practice in meant these branches were accumulating changes until some motivated individual championed fixing breakage there and making a big push to have it merged back into master. I liked the efficiency of working together on a same branch, but it could also be frustrating when you had to constantly rebuild the world just to find something new was broken. -- Thanks, Maxim
