GNU bug report logs - #76899
Request for merging "c++-team" branch

Previous Next

To reply to this bug, email your comments to 76899 AT debbugs.gnu.org.

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

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

From: Greg Hogan <code <at> greghogan.com>
To: guix-patches <at> gnu.org
Subject: Request for merging "c++-team" branch
Date: Sun, 9 Mar 2025 17:10:14 -0400

The branch includes the following patches:

#70031 Use CMake in build-system/cmake.
#76151 gnu: jsoncpp: Update to 1.9.6.

More details are in the introduction to #70031, but in short
  cmake is updated to 3.30.8 from 3.25.1
  cmake-bootstrap is updated to 3.30.8 from 3.24.2
  jsoncpp is updated to 1.9.6 from 1.9.5, dependents reduced to 180 from 24,642

Greg

Message #8 received at 76899 <at> debbugs.gnu.org (full text, mbox):

From: Andreas Enge <andreas <at> enge.fr>
To: Greg Hogan <code <at> greghogan.com>
Cc: 76899 <at> debbugs.gnu.org
Subject: Re: Request for merging "c++-team" branch
Date: Wed, 14 May 2025 12:24:14 +0200

Hello Greg,

I tried to rebase the branch on master, but got a merge conflict in
inkscape. Could you maybe have a look?

Andreas

Message #11 received at 76899 <at> debbugs.gnu.org (full text, mbox):

From: Greg Hogan <code <at> greghogan.com>
To: Andreas Enge <andreas <at> enge.fr>
Cc: 76899 <at> debbugs.gnu.org
Subject: Re: Request for merging "c++-team" branch
Date: Wed, 14 May 2025 16:34:17 -0400

On Wed, May 14, 2025 at 6:24 AM Andreas Enge <andreas <at> enge.fr> wrote:
>
> Hello Greg,
>
> I tried to rebase the branch on master, but got a merge conflict in
> inkscape. Could you maybe have a look?
>
> Andreas

I was able to push but had to delete the branch first. Not sure why
the following was failing (I had fetched upstream).

Are you able to create a c++-team specification on CI? I have waited
on this until getting this branch as clean as I can locally, which
happened just now, and why I had not pushed an updated branch, or a
new patchset on #70031. I am hoping that Codeberg is an improvement
over blasting the mailing list with many-part updates.

Greg

--8<---------------cut here---------------start------------->8---
$ git push -f upstream c++-team
guix git: successfully authenticated commit
315aeb0fc3edb7dcd071cf9737ec908666f0d995
Compiling Scheme modules...
Compiling Scheme modules...
Compiling Scheme modules...
Compiling Scheme modules...
Compiling Scheme modules...
Compiling Scheme modules...
Compiling Scheme modules...
Compiling Scheme modules...
All 132 channel news entries are valid.
Enumerating objects: 494, done.
Counting objects: 100% (494/494), done.
Delta compression using up to 4 threads
Compressing objects: 100% (376/376), done.
Writing objects: 100% (376/376), 126.26 KiB | 66.00 KiB/s, done.
Total 376 (delta 330), reused 0 (delta 0), pack-reused 0 (from 0)
remote: Resolving deltas: 100% (330/330), completed with 118 local objects.
remote: error: denying non-fast-forward refs/heads/c++-team (you
should pull first)
To git.savannah.gnu.org:/srv/git/guix.git
 ! [remote rejected]       c++-team -> c++-team (non-fast-forward)
error: failed to push some refs to 'git.savannah.gnu.org:/srv/git/guix.git'
--8<---------------cut here---------------end--------------->8---

Message #14 received at 76899 <at> debbugs.gnu.org (full text, mbox):

From: Andreas Enge <andreas <at> enge.fr>
To: Greg Hogan <code <at> greghogan.com>
Cc: 76899 <at> debbugs.gnu.org
Subject: Re: Request for merging "c++-team" branch
Date: Thu, 15 May 2025 13:20:04 +0200

Hello,

Am Wed, May 14, 2025 at 04:34:17PM -0400 schrieb Greg Hogan:
> I was able to push but had to delete the branch first. Not sure why
> the following was failing (I had fetched upstream).

this is how the server is set up: One can only push fast forward merges,
and not force push.

> Are you able to create a c++-team specification on CI?

Done, see here:
   https://ci.guix.gnu.org/jobset/c%2B%2B-team

Andreas

Message #17 received at 76899 <at> debbugs.gnu.org (full text, mbox):

From: Andreas Enge <andreas <at> enge.fr>
To: Greg Hogan <code <at> greghogan.com>
Cc: 76899 <at> debbugs.gnu.org
Subject: Re: Request for merging "c++-team" branch
Date: Tue, 27 May 2025 10:08:51 +0200

Hello,

I have rebased once again, on dd5cb574b53337620c31dcc6cd727eabc6a09a48,
and pushed.

Hopefully this will be picked up by the data service soon.

Andreas

Message #20 received at 76899 <at> debbugs.gnu.org (full text, mbox):

From: Christopher Baines <mail <at> cbaines.net>
To: Andreas Enge <andreas <at> enge.fr>
Cc: 76899 <at> debbugs.gnu.org, Greg Hogan <code <at> greghogan.com>
Subject: Re: [bug#76899] Request for merging "c++-team" branch
Date: Wed, 28 May 2025 11:39:35 +0100

[Message part 1 (text/plain, inline)]

Andreas Enge <andreas <at> enge.fr> writes:

> I have rebased once again, on dd5cb574b53337620c31dcc6cd727eabc6a09a48,
> and pushed.
>
> Hopefully this will be picked up by the data service soon.

I was looking at why the data service was so slow at processing this
branch, and I think it was mostly due to [1] "build-system/gnu: Limit
load average.".

1: https://codeberg.org/guix/guix/commit/dd2ebc733add21f9b40d0df5b7a8337c5beb8e72

Turns out that this change is also on the core-packages-team branch,
which is amore appropriate place, so I've rebased removing this commit.

I'd recommend running guix weather on branches like this since by
computing all the derivations you might find some problems, and it'll
give a sense of how many packages are affected by the changes.

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

Message #25 received at 76899 <at> debbugs.gnu.org (full text, mbox):

From: Andreas Enge <andreas <at> enge.fr>
To: Christopher Baines <mail <at> cbaines.net>
Cc: 76899 <at> debbugs.gnu.org, Greg Hogan <code <at> greghogan.com>
Subject: Re: [bug#76899] Request for merging "c++-team" branch
Date: Tue, 3 Jun 2025 12:35:49 +0200

Hello,

the branch has a few build failures, including important packages such
as llvm:
   https://qa.guix.gnu.org/branch/c++-team/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

Could you have a look, Greg?

Andreas

Message #30 received at 76899 <at> debbugs.gnu.org (full text, mbox):

From: Andreas Enge <andreas <at> enge.fr>
To: John Kehayias <john.kehayias <at> protonmail.com>
Cc: 76899 <at> debbugs.gnu.org, Christopher Baines <mail <at> cbaines.net>,
 Greg Hogan <code <at> greghogan.com>, 77340 <at> debbugs.gnu.org
Subject: Re: bug#77340: Request for merging "mesa-updates" branch
Date: Thu, 5 Jun 2025 10:43:57 +0200

Hello,

while waiting for the c++-team branch to be fixed, I have passed the
mesa-updates branch to the front after rebasing it on commit
027a47787f8dcf6651a1c20c5b475376defe6d6b .

Please keep observing it and merge it when it is ready.

I am not sure if QA is currently keeping up with the branches, but it
is also evaluated by CI at
   https://ci.guix.gnu.org/jobset/mesa-updates

Thanks,

Andreas

Message #33 received at 76899 <at> debbugs.gnu.org (full text, mbox):

From: John Kehayias <john.kehayias <at> protonmail.com>
To: Andreas Enge <andreas <at> enge.fr>
Cc: 76899 <at> debbugs.gnu.org, Christopher Baines <mail <at> cbaines.net>,
 Greg Hogan <code <at> greghogan.com>, 77340 <at> debbugs.gnu.org
Subject: Re: bug#77340: Request for merging "mesa-updates" branch
Date: Sun, 08 Jun 2025 19:53:41 +0000

Hi Andreas et al.

On Thu, Jun 05, 2025 at 10:43 AM, Andreas Enge wrote:

> Hello,
>
> while waiting for the c++-team branch to be fixed, I have passed the
> mesa-updates branch to the front after rebasing it on commit
> 027a47787f8dcf6651a1c20c5b475376defe6d6b .
>

Thanks! I just rebased on 199fd26ab268d4f26cebcb39e844fe4ff9bea9bc (had
a checkmark on data services) and pushed another mesa update as they had
an emergency bugfix release (issue with latest AMD cards).

Prior to that the coverage on QA was about the same as master.

> Please keep observing it and merge it when it is ready.
>

So I can go ahead and merge this after this update builds then?

> I am not sure if QA is currently keeping up with the branches, but it
> is also evaluated by CI at
>    https://ci.guix.gnu.org/jobset/mesa-updates
>

Yup, I've been keeping an eye on there whenever I'm working on this
branch, at least to see x86/x86_64 builds (always need to wait for
Bordeaux for others).

> Thanks,
>
> Andreas

A thanks for helping manage the branches!
John

Message #36 received at 76899 <at> debbugs.gnu.org (full text, mbox):

From: Andreas Enge <andreas <at> enge.fr>
To: John Kehayias <john.kehayias <at> protonmail.com>
Cc: 76899 <at> debbugs.gnu.org, Christopher Baines <mail <at> cbaines.net>,
 Greg Hogan <code <at> greghogan.com>, 77340 <at> debbugs.gnu.org
Subject: Re: bug#77340: Request for merging "mesa-updates" branch
Date: Mon, 9 Jun 2025 16:43:37 +0200

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.

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.

Thanks,

Andreas

Previous Next

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