[Nix-dev] bash updates

[Lluís Batlle i Rossell]

Hello all,

On Mon, Oct 03, 2011 at 01:41:50AM +0400, Michael Raskin wrote:
> > > Since stdenv updates are infrequent, we’d rather not do it “just” for
> > > Bash.  Instead we usually bundle a list of stdenv package upgrades
> > > (libc, GCC, Coreutils, etc.), hence the branch name.  :-)
> >
> >I am sorry if I happen to be dull, but I have difficulties understanding
> >your message, because I don't know who you refer to as "we". You are
> >speaking for yourself, I suppose? If you are not, then who are you
> >speaking for?
> 
> It is percieved as established practice in the project. I agree 
> with Ludo's statement and has stated this explicitly quite
> recently which makes "we" technically correct, but that's not the 
> point.

I also agree with what ludo and Michael states, so I feel a bit part of the
'we'.

> Merge has significant one-time build overhead, so it doesn't 
> occur without near-consensus. Ludo stated some conditions for 
> merge. So, until he either finishes ensuring that these
> conditions are met or explicitly gives up, merging stdenv-updates
> branch is a bad idea. 

Some people using nix would not mind a stdenv-updates merge into trunk: in the
sense that they will accept a full rebuild soon. Not that they accept the
current state of stdenv-updates. That acceptance of a new stdenv, at least for
me, comes with two conditions: I don't want a second stdenv update soon. So this
next update coming should be tested enough, and bringing enough new packages.

I think now it's a matter of getting a common consensus of "update
stdenv-updates stdenv packages to the versions we want now, freeze them, and
start stabilising the full branch for a merge to trunk soon".

I'm for it. Anyone waiting for a new release of something, or against a stdenv
merge?

(I see ludo updated a battery of packages today, I hope that puts stdenv to
the newest code released)

Regards,
Lluís