| Message ID | 20220208020834.5701-1-jgart@dismail.de |
|---|---|
| State | Accepted |
| Headers | show |
| Series | [bug#53865] gnu: ruby-parser: Update to 3.1.0.0. | expand |
| Context | Check | Description |
|---|---|---|
| cbaines/comparison | success | View comparision |
| cbaines/git branch | success | View Git branch |
| cbaines/applying patch | success | View Laminar job |
| cbaines/issue | success | View issue |
Hello,
jgart via Guix-patches via <guix-patches@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,
On Wed, 09 Feb 2022 16:05:52 +0100 Nicolas Goaziou <mail@nicolasgoaziou.fr> wrote: > Hello, > > jgart via Guix-patches via <guix-patches@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?
jgart via Guix-patches via <guix-patches@gnu.org> writes: > On Wed, 09 Feb 2022 16:05:52 +0100 Nicolas Goaziou <mail@nicolasgoaziou.fr> wrote: >> Hello, >> >> jgart via Guix-patches via <guix-patches@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,
On Wed, 09 Feb 2022 21:00:36 +0100 Nicolas Goaziou <mail@nicolasgoaziou.fr> wrote: > jgart via Guix-patches via <guix-patches@gnu.org> writes: > > > On Wed, 09 Feb 2022 16:05:52 +0100 Nicolas Goaziou <mail@nicolasgoaziou.fr> wrote: > >> Hello, > >> > >> jgart via Guix-patches via <guix-patches@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
On Wed, 09 Feb 2022 16:05:30 -0500 jgart <jgart@dismail.de> wrote: > On Wed, 09 Feb 2022 21:00:36 +0100 Nicolas Goaziou <mail@nicolasgoaziou.fr> wrote: > > jgart via Guix-patches via <guix-patches@gnu.org> writes: > > > > > On Wed, 09 Feb 2022 16:05:52 +0100 Nicolas Goaziou <mail@nicolasgoaziou.fr> wrote: > > >> Hello, > > >> > > >> jgart via Guix-patches via <guix-patches@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?
jgart via Guix-patches via <guix-patches@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,
On Wed, 09 Feb 2022 22:24:04 +0100 Nicolas Goaziou <mail@nicolasgoaziou.fr> wrote: > jgart via Guix-patches via <guix-patches@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.
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