GNU bug report logs - #53865
[PATCH] gnu: ruby-parser: Update to 3.1.0.0.

Previous Next

To add a comment to this bug, you must first unarchive it, by sending
a message to control AT debbugs.gnu.org, with unarchive 53865 in the body.
You can then email your comments to 53865 AT debbugs.gnu.org in the normal way.

Toggle the display of automated, internal messages from the tracker.

Message #5 received at submit <at> debbugs.gnu.org (full text, mbox):

From: jgart <jgart <at> dismail.de>
To: guix-patches <at> gnu.org
Cc: jgart <jgart <at> dismail.de>
Subject: [PATCH] gnu: ruby-parser: Update to 3.1.0.0.
Date: Mon,  7 Feb 2022 21:08:34 -0500

* gnu/packages/ruby.scm (ruby-parser): Update to 3.1.0.0.
---
 gnu/packages/ruby.scm | 4 ++--
 1 file changed, 2 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)

diff --git a/gnu/packages/ruby.scm b/gnu/packages/ruby.scm
index b242aa8295..e15d53eefa 100644
--- a/gnu/packages/ruby.scm
+++ b/gnu/packages/ruby.scm
@@ -5195,14 +5195,14 @@ (define-public ruby-parallel-tests
 (define-public ruby-parser
   (package
     (name "ruby-parser")
-    (version "3.0.0.0")
+    (version "3.1.0.0")
     (source
      (origin
        (method url-fetch)
        (uri (rubygems-uri "parser" version))
        (sha256
         (base32
-         "1jixakyzmy0j5c1rb0fjrrdhgnyryvrr6vgcybs14jfw09akv5ml"))))
+         "08q20ckhn58m49lccf93p0yv7pkc7hymmcz3di762kb658d5fd38"))))
     (build-system ruby-build-system)
     (arguments
      '(#:tests? #f)) ; tests not included in gem
-- 
2.35.0

Message #8 received at submit <at> debbugs.gnu.org (full text, mbox):

From: Nicolas Goaziou <mail <at> nicolasgoaziou.fr>
To: jgart via Guix-patches via <guix-patches <at> gnu.org>
Cc: jgart <jgart <at> dismail.de>, 53865-done <at> debbugs.gnu.org
Subject: Re: [bug#53865] [PATCH] gnu: ruby-parser: Update to 3.1.0.0.
Date: Wed, 09 Feb 2022 16:05:52 +0100

Hello,

jgart via Guix-patches via <guix-patches <at> gnu.org> writes:

> * gnu/packages/ruby.scm (ruby-parser): Update to 3.1.0.0.

Applied on core-updates (it entails building 5k packages).

Regards,
-- 
Nicolas Goaziou

Message #16 received at submit <at> debbugs.gnu.org (full text, mbox):

From: jgart <jgart <at> dismail.de>
To: Nicolas Goaziou <mail <at> nicolasgoaziou.fr>
Cc: 53865-done <at> debbugs.gnu.org,
 jgart via Guix-patches via <guix-patches <at> gnu.org>
Subject: Re: [bug#53865] [PATCH] gnu: ruby-parser: Update to 3.1.0.0.
Date: Wed, 9 Feb 2022 13:02:13 -0500

On Wed, 09 Feb 2022 16:05:52 +0100 Nicolas Goaziou <mail <at> nicolasgoaziou.fr> wrote:
> Hello,
> 
> jgart via Guix-patches via <guix-patches <at> gnu.org> writes:
> 
> > * gnu/packages/ruby.scm (ruby-parser): Update to 3.1.0.0.
> 
> Applied on core-updates (it entails building 5k packages).

Thanks Nicolas!

What is your workflow for determining whether it goes to core-updates?

Do you just run `guix size ...` at the end of working on something and then
make a decision while consulting that page in the manual that details it?

Message #22 received at submit <at> debbugs.gnu.org (full text, mbox):

From: Nicolas Goaziou <mail <at> nicolasgoaziou.fr>
To: jgart via Guix-patches via <guix-patches <at> gnu.org>
Cc: 53865-done <at> debbugs.gnu.org, 53865 <at> debbugs.gnu.org, jgart <jgart <at> dismail.de>
Subject: Re: [bug#53865] [PATCH] gnu: ruby-parser: Update to 3.1.0.0.
Date: Wed, 09 Feb 2022 21:00:36 +0100

jgart via Guix-patches via <guix-patches <at> gnu.org> writes:

> On Wed, 09 Feb 2022 16:05:52 +0100 Nicolas Goaziou <mail <at> nicolasgoaziou.fr> wrote:
>> Hello,
>> 
>> jgart via Guix-patches via <guix-patches <at> gnu.org> writes:
>> 
>> > * gnu/packages/ruby.scm (ruby-parser): Update to 3.1.0.0.
>> 
>> Applied on core-updates (it entails building 5k packages).
>
> Thanks Nicolas!
>
> What is your workflow for determining whether it goes to core-updates?

I did

  guix refresh --list-dependent ruby

It reported 5000+ packages. According to Submitting Patches section of
the manual, above 1800, it should go to core-updates (at the moment).

HTH,
-- 
Nicolas Goaziou

Message #31 received at 53865 <at> debbugs.gnu.org (full text, mbox):

From: jgart <jgart <at> dismail.de>
To: Nicolas Goaziou <mail <at> nicolasgoaziou.fr>
Cc: 53865 <at> debbugs.gnu.org, 53865-done <at> debbugs.gnu.org,
 jgart via Guix-patches via <guix-patches <at> gnu.org>
Subject: Re: [bug#53865] [PATCH] gnu: ruby-parser: Update to 3.1.0.0.
Date: Wed, 9 Feb 2022 16:05:30 -0500

On Wed, 09 Feb 2022 21:00:36 +0100 Nicolas Goaziou <mail <at> nicolasgoaziou.fr> wrote:
> jgart via Guix-patches via <guix-patches <at> gnu.org> writes:
> 
> > On Wed, 09 Feb 2022 16:05:52 +0100 Nicolas Goaziou <mail <at> nicolasgoaziou.fr> wrote:
> >> Hello,
> >> 
> >> jgart via Guix-patches via <guix-patches <at> gnu.org> writes:
> >> 
> >> > * gnu/packages/ruby.scm (ruby-parser): Update to 3.1.0.0.
> >> 
> >> Applied on core-updates (it entails building 5k packages).
> >
> > Thanks Nicolas!
> >
> > What is your workflow for determining whether it goes to core-updates?
> 
> I did
> 
>   guix refresh --list-dependent ruby
> 
> It reported 5000+ packages. According to Submitting Patches section of
> the manual, above 1800, it should go to core-updates (at the moment).
> 
> HTH,

Ah yes, `refresh` not `size`

Thanks!
> -- 
> Nicolas Goaziou

Message #40 received at submit <at> debbugs.gnu.org (full text, mbox):

From: jgart <jgart <at> dismail.de>
To: Nicolas Goaziou <mail <at> nicolasgoaziou.fr>
Cc: 53865 <at> debbugs.gnu.org, 53865-done <at> debbugs.gnu.org,
 jgart via Guix-patches via <guix-patches <at> gnu.org>
Subject: Re: [bug#53865] [PATCH] gnu: ruby-parser: Update to 3.1.0.0.
Date: Wed, 9 Feb 2022 16:16:38 -0500

On Wed, 09 Feb 2022 16:05:30 -0500 jgart <jgart <at> dismail.de> wrote:
> On Wed, 09 Feb 2022 21:00:36 +0100 Nicolas Goaziou <mail <at> nicolasgoaziou.fr> wrote:
> > jgart via Guix-patches via <guix-patches <at> gnu.org> writes:
> > 
> > > On Wed, 09 Feb 2022 16:05:52 +0100 Nicolas Goaziou <mail <at> nicolasgoaziou.fr> wrote:
> > >> Hello,
> > >> 
> > >> jgart via Guix-patches via <guix-patches <at> gnu.org> writes:
> > >> 
> > >> > * gnu/packages/ruby.scm (ruby-parser): Update to 3.1.0.0.
> > >> 
> > >> Applied on core-updates (it entails building 5k packages).
> > >
> > > Thanks Nicolas!
> > >
> > > What is your workflow for determining whether it goes to core-updates?
> > 
> > I did
> > 
> >   guix refresh --list-dependent ruby
> > 
> > It reported 5000+ packages. According to Submitting Patches section of
> > the manual, above 1800, it should go to core-updates (at the moment).

What do you think if we were to add  a smart user message to the `guix refresh
--list-dependent ...` command?

I was thinking something along these lines:

```
$ guix refresh --list-dependent ruby-parser

Building the following 1991 packages would ensure 5378 dependent packages are rebuilt: ...

ruby-parser reported 5000+ packages. According to Submitting Patches section of
the manual, above 1800, it should go to core-updates (at the moment).
```

Like that, the command reminds the user/calculates for the user what
branch to put the package in.

I'm imagining it would be as easy as just getting the length of the output and
matching against it the appropriate message?

Message #49 received at submit <at> debbugs.gnu.org (full text, mbox):

From: Nicolas Goaziou <mail <at> nicolasgoaziou.fr>
To: jgart via Guix-patches via <guix-patches <at> gnu.org>
Cc: 53865 <at> debbugs.gnu.org, jgart <jgart <at> dismail.de>, 53865-done <at> debbugs.gnu.org
Subject: Re: [bug#53865] [PATCH] gnu: ruby-parser: Update to 3.1.0.0.
Date: Wed, 09 Feb 2022 22:24:04 +0100

jgart via Guix-patches via <guix-patches <at> gnu.org> writes:

> What do you think if we were to add  a smart user message to the `guix refresh
> --list-dependent ...` command?
>
> I was thinking something along these lines:
>
> ```
> $ guix refresh --list-dependent ruby-parser
>
> Building the following 1991 packages would ensure 5378 dependent packages are rebuilt: ...
>
> ruby-parser reported 5000+ packages. According to Submitting Patches section of
> the manual, above 1800, it should go to core-updates (at the moment).
> ```
>
> Like that, the command reminds the user/calculates for the user what
> branch to put the package in.
>
> I'm imagining it would be as easy as just getting the length of the output and
> matching against it the appropriate message?

This would only be useful for people wanting to submit a patch who have
forgotten about that rule. For everyone else, this is just technical
noise. I don't think this is something terribly useful.

In any case, you can create another bug report to suggest it as an UI
improvement.

Regards,

Message #58 received at 53865 <at> debbugs.gnu.org (full text, mbox):

From: jgart <jgart <at> dismail.de>
To: Nicolas Goaziou <mail <at> nicolasgoaziou.fr>
Cc: 53865-done <at> debbugs.gnu.org, 53865 <at> debbugs.gnu.org,
 jgart via Guix-patches via <guix-patches <at> gnu.org>
Subject: Re: [bug#53865] [PATCH] gnu: ruby-parser: Update to 3.1.0.0.
Date: Wed, 9 Feb 2022 17:10:11 -0500

On Wed, 09 Feb 2022 22:24:04 +0100 Nicolas Goaziou <mail <at> nicolasgoaziou.fr> wrote:
> jgart via Guix-patches via <guix-patches <at> gnu.org> writes:
> 
> > What do you think if we were to add  a smart user message to the `guix refresh
> > --list-dependent ...` command?
> >
> > I was thinking something along these lines:
> >
> > ```
> > $ guix refresh --list-dependent ruby-parser
> >
> > Building the following 1991 packages would ensure 5378 dependent packages are rebuilt: ...
> >
> > ruby-parser reported 5000+ packages. According to Submitting Patches section of
> > the manual, above 1800, it should go to core-updates (at the moment).
> > ```
> >
> > Like that, the command reminds the user/calculates for the user what
> > branch to put the package in.
> >
> > I'm imagining it would be as easy as just getting the length of the output and
> > matching against it the appropriate message?
> 
> This would only be useful for people wanting to submit a patch who have
> forgotten about that rule. For everyone else, this is just technical
> noise. I don't think this is something terribly useful.
> 
> In any case, you can create another bug report to suggest it as an UI
> improvement.

If you think it's bloat, I can get behind that. 

I should just memorize the rule already ;()

I was thinking it could be useful for newcomers to Guix but maybe they
should just find it in the manual.

I know I missed that part in the manual when I was more of a fresher
and I still do sometimes as this patch attested.

Previous Next

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