Subject: Re: bug#77340: Request for merging "mesa-updates" branch
From: John Kehayias <[email-masked]>
To: Andreas Enge <[email-masked]>
Cc: [email-masked], Efraim Flashner <[email-masked]>, Christopher Baines <[email-masked]>, Greg Hogan <[email-masked]>, [email-masked]
Date: Wed, 11 Jun 2025 22:41:44 +0000
List-Id: <debbugs-submit.debbugs.gnu.org>

Hi Andreas et al,

On Mon, Jun 09, 2025 at 04:43 PM, Andreas Enge wrote:

> Hello,
>
> Am Sun, Jun 08, 2025 at 07:53:41PM +0000 schrieb John Kehayias:
>> So I can go ahead and merge this after this update builds then?
>
> yes, please do, close the bug and delete the branch (and keep us in cc).
> This is assuming all goes well :)
> There seem to be problems with CI as you reported, and the previous
> evaluation had lots of failing packages, but they looked rather spurious
> than real failures.
>

I've gone ahead and merged mesa-updates after Efraim (added to CC) made
some fixes for riscv64-linux (though this isn't set to build on
QA/mesa-updates so substitutes will only build now on Berlin/master).

I'll be keeping an eye for any failures or reports of trouble, hopefully
just some random leaf packages at most.

> On QA, it has taken a while until the mesa-updates branch went to the
> front, although I had given "block" instructions to debbugs - maybe
> Chris had to change some code to take multiple blocks into account?
> No, apparently blocking is not transitive - I see he has added an
> explicit block yesterday.
>
> So QA is working full-speed on the branch.
> There are a few failing packages:
>    https://qa.guix.gnu.org/branch/mesa-updates/package-changes?x86_64-linux-change=broken&x86_64-linux-change=still-failing&x86_64-linux-change=unknown-to-failing&x86_64-linux-change=new-failing
> I will let you judge whether these are more than random failures,
> and if they are related to mesa, whether they should be repaired on
> the branch or whether this can wait until master.
>

It has been hard to investigate failures directly from the Berlin CI
jobset due to webfront end/build processing issues where. I had reports
of at least one user on IRC that has used the branch fine on their
machine, and I've checked my own manifests as well. Usually (hopefully
not famous last words!) there isn't much happening, but it would be good
to have people with different hardware in the future to test pre-merge,
especially older hardware.

I didn't spot anything that looked critical or necessarily related to
these changes, but I'll be sure to be available for any fixes. Overall
substitute coverage was about the same as master in the last few days so
I don't anticipate much action, hopefully.

> Thanks,
>
> Andreas

Thanks for helping coordinate!

I really better create a mesa/graphics team and get this on a regular
schedule. It is a pretty straightforward branch and packages when doing
it a regular pace to keep relatively up to date with upstream.

John