GNU bug report logs - #36404
[PATCH 0/6] Add 'guix deploy'.

Previous Next

Package: guix-patches;

Reported by: zerodaysfordays <at> sdf.lonestar.org (Jakob L. Kreuze)

Date: Thu, 27 Jun 2019 18:38:02 UTC

Severity: normal

Tags: patch

Done: Christopher Lemmer Webber <cwebber <at> dustycloud.org>

Bug is archived. No further changes may be made.

Full log


View this message in rfc822 format

From: zerodaysfordays <at> sdf.lonestar.org (Jakob L. Kreuze)
To: Ludovic Courtès <ludo <at> gnu.org>
Cc: Christopher Lemmer Webber <cwebber <at> dustycloud.org>, 36404 <at> debbugs.gnu.org, "Thompson, David" <dthompson2 <at> worcester.edu>
Subject: [bug#36404] [PATCH v4 2/4] gnu: Add machine type for deployment specifications.
Date: Thu, 04 Jul 2019 11:59:49 -0400
[Message part 1 (text/plain, inline)]
Hi Ludovic,

Ludovic Courtès <ludo <at> gnu.org> writes:

> To me the end goal was to move these “effectful” bits into a script,
> such that both ‘guix system reconfigure’ and ‘guix deploy’ would only
> have to run that script, locally or remotely. That would avoid
> duplicating these somewhat tricky procedures.

Ah, that's starting to ring a bell now. I believe you mentioned that
when 'guix deploy' was initially being proposed, but at the time I
didn't quite register that we'd be extracting the behavior in that way.

> Now, perhaps we can start like this, and leave factorization for
> later? I just want to make sure we don’t forget about that and let it
> evolve into something we have a hard time maintaining.
>
> WDYT?

I agree. I'm getting the impression that people don't want this to sit
in review limbo for too long, and in terms of "commit history hygiene,"
I think it would be better to recognize refactoring out the common
behavior as a distinct change.

Thanks!

Regards,
Jakob
[signature.asc (application/pgp-signature, inline)]

This bug report was last modified 6 years and 10 days ago.

Previous Next


GNU bug tracking system
Copyright (C) 1999 Darren O. Benham, 1997,2003 nCipher Corporation Ltd, 1994-97 Ian Jackson.