GNU bug report logs -
#70647
30.0.50; When are :core packages released to GNU ELPA?
Previous Next
Reported by: No Wayman <iarchivedmywholelife <at> gmail.com>
Date: Mon, 29 Apr 2024 12:50:02 UTC
Severity: normal
Found in version 30.0.50
Done: Stefan Kangas <stefankangas <at> gmail.com>
Bug is archived. No further changes may be made.
Full log
Message #14 received at 70647 <at> debbugs.gnu.org (full text, mbox):
Eli Zaretskii <eliz <at> gnu.org> writes:
>> From: No Wayman <iarchivedmywholelife <at> gmail.com>
>> Cc: Philip Kaludercic <philipk <at> posteo.net>
>> Date: Mon, 29 Apr 2024 10:25:50 -0400
>>
>> Eli Zaretskii <eliz <at> gnu.org> writes:
>>
>> > [Why private email?]
>>
>> Apologies. Must've fat-fingered my reply key binding.
>
> Looks like you did it again. Please use Reply All, to have the bug
> tracker CC'ed.
>
> Resending to the bug tracker.
>
>> >> From: No Wayman <iarchivedmywholelife <at> gmail.com> Date: Mon, 29
>> >> Apr 2024 09:52:54 -0400 Eli Zaretskii <eliz <at> gnu.org> writes:
>> >>
>> >> > Are there any differences in the code between version 1.17 on
>> >> > ELPA and the Eglot code as of commit b014bca833a.
>> >> I would hope not. Otherwise the version information is
>> >> incorrect.
>> >
>> > Then why is this a problem? File time stamps are immaterial
>> > with modern VCSes.
>>
>> The problem is it's confusing.
>> When is the "release date" of eglot 1.17?
>> The date of the commit which bumped the Version header?
>> The date of some other action which triggered an ELPA build?
>> If file timestamps are indeed immaterial, than it would make the
>> most sense to stick with the commit date which bumped the Version
>> header.
>> That does not appear to be the case.
>>
>> >> > What would you like to be documented?
>> >> - What triggers a package build/release on GNU ELPA in all
>> >> cases
>> >> (:core or otherwise)?
>> >
>> > Philip will tell, but I'm not surprised, given that this is a
>> > volunteer project.
When a commit modifies the Version header in the main file, then the
state of that commit is used to trigger a new release, both for core and
otherwise.
>> >> - What triggers a package build/release on GNU-devel ELPA.
>> >
>> > What is "GNU-devel ELPA"?
>>
>> Forgive me if I misspoke, but: https://elpa.gnu.org/devel/
These are rebuilt on every commit. The intended audience IMO are
developers here though, so that they can easily preview the state of
packages.
>> > <h1> GNU-devel ELPA Packages </h1>
>>
>> If that's not what it's called, then the website should be updated
>> to reflect the preferred name.
The name is fine. I am just guessing that it is not something that Eli
has to deal with that often.
>> > I don't even understand the problem you see here.
>>
>> I've seen other package maintainers confused about what/when a
>> rebuild is triggered. I have reports on Elpaca's issue tracker
>> where users are confused by the release dates listed on GNU ELPA's
>> websites. I myself am not 100% sure I understand all cases that
>> trigger builds. The issue is I could not find a place where this
>> is all clearly documented.
There were issues related to some recent changes that re-build the
package tarballs, but the content should have been the same. But that
was a mistake, and not something that should happen on a regular basis.
--
Philip Kaludercic on peregrine
This bug report was last modified 77 days ago.
Previous Next
GNU bug tracking system
Copyright (C) 1999 Darren O. Benham,
1997,2003 nCipher Corporation Ltd,
1994-97 Ian Jackson.