Re: Emacs next variants

Hi, On jeu., 09 mars 2023 at 19:51, Cayetano Santos wrote: > (emacs-next-tree-sitter (emacs-next-gtk (emacs-next (emacs [...] > (emacs-next-gtk (emacs-next-tree-sitter (emacs-next (emacs Note that emacs-next-tree-sitter is not from the 29 branch (emacs-next) but from the 30 br

Re: GHC in core-updates

But I confirm that ghc@9.2.5 now fails its tests, it has happened a second time for me. Nothing in the recent commits to core-updates since I tried the last time springs to mind as obviously having a connection to these failures. Andreas

Re: Brainstorming ideas for define-configuration

Hi Bruno, Bruno Victal writes: > Co-authored-by: Felix Lechner > > > After spending some time with old and new Guix services, I'd like to > suggest some potential improvements to our define-configuration macro: There seems to be some good suggestions in there, but I'm a bit struggling to see th

Re: bug#61894: [PATCH RFC] Team approval for patches

Hello Simon, Am Thu, Mar 09, 2023 at 10:46:08AM +0100 schrieb Simon Tournier: > Hierarchy already exists, as in any social group, as in any group of > people collaborating. The hierarchy is currently informal. while I am sensitive to your argument about privileges, I am afraid that the suggestio

Re: Herding file-systems

Hi, Bruno Victal writes: > Co-authored-by: Felix Lechner > > > Some observations and potential plans of action to improve file-system > handling > and proper NFS support within Guix. > > > Relaxing dependency field of file-system record type > ===

State of core-updates

Hello all, let me start with a call for help! I realise that it takes me about one week and something close to 100GB on my poor 2-core laptop to rebuild the bulk of core-updates up to the packages in my profile, and that is not sustainable. It also forces me to do a "guix gc" between two runs, wit

Re: Emacs next variants

>ven. 10 mars 2023 at 13:07, Simon Tournier wrote: > Note that emacs-next-tree-sitter is not from the 29 branch (emacs-next) > but from the 30 branch. Therefore, it would mean emacs-next-pgtk also > be an Emacs 30 version. I do not use them so I have not opinion. > > And why not split the cha

Re: Guix packages website: Light/Dark mode available

Hi Luis, Luis Felipe writes: > Hi Guix, > > Just to let you all know that I recently added light and dark styles to the > package browser (https://codeberg.org/luis-felipe/guix-packages-website). > > Screenshots: > > Light: > https://luis-felipe.gitlab.io/media/2023/03/guix-packages-website-li

Re: Emacs next variants

Hi, On Fri, 10 Mar 2023 at 16:04, Cayetano Santos wrote: > Fine with me, even if to me emacs-next means latest from master, > including tree-sitter. You decide to use the feature, or not. Just to be sure we are on the same wavelength. :-) The package emacs-next is not currently following "mast

Re: Emacs next variants

Hi all, On Fri, Mar 10, 2023 at 04:39 PM, Simon Tournier wrote: > Hi, > > On Fri, 10 Mar 2023 at 16:04, Cayetano Santos wrote: > >> Fine with me, even if to me emacs-next means latest from master, >> including tree-sitter. You decide to use the feature, or not. > > Just to be sure we are on the

Re: bug#61894: [PATCH RFC] Team approval for patches

Hello Maxim and all! Maxim Cournoyer skribis: >> With the proposed policy, members of a team would also have to review >> and approve each other’s work. Formal approval means getting an >> explicit “LGTM” (or similar) from at least one other team member. > > In other words, to give teams the po

Re: bug#61894: [PATCH RFC] Team approval for patches

Hi Andreas, Re-reading the thread, I think we started with different frames. :-) On ven., 10 mars 2023 at 15:19, Andreas Enge wrote: > while I am sensitive to your argument about privileges, I am afraid that > the suggestion would remove privileges from the committers, while not > bestowing th

Re: GHC in core-updates

Hello Andreas, > Maybe you had a transient test failure? "async" sounds like the kind of > tests that could fail randomly... unfortunately it is not a transient failure. I can reproduce it every time I try to build python2 on core-updates, even with `--cores=1`. And it also reproduces on master.

Re: Emacs next variants

Hi, On Fri, 10 Mar 2023 at 17:59, John Kehayias wrote: > During this discussion some changes were made to this inheritance structure in > > > > and > >

Re: bug#61894: [PATCH RFC] Team approval for patches

Hi Ludo', On Fri, Mar 10, 2023 at 9:22 AM Ludovic Courtès wrote: > > Like you I’m glad collaboration is nice and friendly; yet, over the past > few months I’ve experienced misunderstandings that seemingly broke the > consensus-based process that has always prevailed. I have no idea what happened

Re: Emacs next variants

>ven. 10 mars 2023 at 19:14, Simon Tournier wrote: > Hi, > > On Fri, 10 Mar 2023 at 17:59, John Kehayias > wrote: > >> During this discussion some changes were made to this inheritance structure >> in >> >>

Re: Emacs next variants

On 2023-03-10 19:14, Simon Tournier wrote: > Hi, > > On Fri, 10 Mar 2023 at 17:59, John Kehayias > wrote: > >> During this discussion some changes were made to this inheritance structure >> in >> >>

Re: Emacs next variants

On 2023-03-10 19:24, Cayetano Santos wrote: >>ven. 10 mars 2023 at 19:14, Simon Tournier wrote: > >> Hi, >> >> On Fri, 10 Mar 2023 at 17:59, John Kehayias >> wrote: >> >>> During this discussion some changes were made to this inheritance structure >>> in >>> >>>

Re: State of core-updates

Hi Andreas, Andreas Enge writes: > Hello all, > > let me start with a call for help! I realise that it takes me about one > week and something close to 100GB on my poor 2-core laptop to rebuild > the bulk of core-updates up to the packages in my profile, and that is not > sustainable. It also fo

Re: State of core-updates

Andreas Enge writes: > So it would be nice if someone could set up a more complete job for > core-updates on cuirass or QA, and maybe write up a how-to to see which > packages work and which ones need more love, preferably by architecture. > (Without offense, I honestly do not see what >http

Re: Emacs next variants

Am Freitag, dem 10.03.2023 um 22:44 +0400 schrieb Andrew Tropin: > > > Thanks for pointing that.  From my understanding, it does not > > > change what Cayetanos is raising: emacs-next-tree-sitter is built > > > using '--with-pgtk'.  In fact, the package emacs-next-tree-sitter > > > is built using t

Re: Brainstorming ideas for define-configuration

March 9, 2023 3:25 PM, "Liliana Marie Prikler" wrote: > Hi, > > Am Donnerstag, dem 09.03.2023 um 02:28 + schrieb Bruno Victal: > > I smell bad code ahead. > >> We could provide procedures that validate each record type within >> define-configuration itself instead of validating the value

Re: Emacs next variants

>ven. 10 mars 2023 at 22:44, Andrew Tropin wrote: > [[PGP Signed Part:Undecided]] > On 2023-03-10 19:24, Cayetano Santos wrote: > >>>ven. 10 mars 2023 at 19:14, Simon Tournier wrote: >> >>> Hi, >>> >>> On Fri, 10 Mar 2023 at 17:59, John Kehayias >>> wrote: >>> During this discussion som

The 🐑 Shepherd gets continuous integration

Hello! Inspired by the unbelievable continuous integration (CI) setup of Guile¹, I came up with an equally fancy CI setup for the Shepherd: https://ci.guix.gnu.org/jobset/shepherd The CI jobs are defined in this manifest: https://git.savannah.gnu.org/cgit/shepherd.git/tree/build-aux/manifes

Re: Brainstorming ideas for define-configuration

Am Freitag, dem 10.03.2023 um 20:15 + schrieb jbra...@dismail.de: > While I would agree that a guix service writer should avoid mutually > exclusive fieldnames and instead prefer mutually exclusive records > (and 95% of that time that will work), but may we examine it from a > user's perspectiv

Re: bug#61894: [PATCH RFC] Team approval for patches

Am Fri, Mar 10, 2023 at 06:33:58PM +0100 schrieb Simon Tournier: > However, for some packages or changes, the impact is far from being > trivial. I have in mind many changes that happen aside gnu/packages and > also some core packages (Guile, etc.). > For these kind of changes, it does not appear