diff mbox series

[bug#38455] doc: Mention how to test against make / guix pull breakage.

Message ID CAJ3okZ3Nu2tTB7oFT6ttsfznfEgz9-aSRArgy=Erg9F5E-LqDw@mail.gmail.com
State Accepted
Headers show
Series [bug#38455] doc: Mention how to test against make / guix pull breakage. | expand

Commit Message

Simon Tournier Dec. 2, 2019, 12:08 p.m. UTC 
Hi Pierre,

On Mon, 2 Dec 2019 at 10:16, Pierre Neidhardt <mail@ambrevar.xyz> wrote:

> * doc/contributing.texi (Submitting Patches): Mention commands in the check
>   list.

Nice!

I propose instead this wording. Because, I am not sure that building
Guix from source is really necessary to run/check "guix pull".


--8<---------------cut here---------------start------------->8---
 When posting a patch to the mailing list, use @samp{[PATCH] @dots{}} as
--8<---------------cut here---------------end--------------->8---


Hope that helps.

Cheers,
simon

Comments

Pierre Neidhardt Dec. 2, 2019, 12:16 p.m. UTC | #1 
I'm actually not sure about one thing: Does `guix pull` catch the errors
of `make`?
I believe that make can output useful warnings, which maybe not bother
`guix pull`, but maybe I'm wrong.
Simon Tournier Dec. 2, 2019, 12:32 p.m. UTC | #2 
On Mon, 2 Dec 2019 at 13:16, Pierre Neidhardt <mail@ambrevar.xyz> wrote:
>
> I'm actually not sure about one thing: Does `guix pull` catch the errors
> of `make`?

What is the point of this advice? Check if "guix pull" is broken,
right? I think "guix pull -n --url=foo" does the job, isn't it?

> I believe that make can output useful warnings, which maybe not bother
> `guix pull`, but maybe I'm wrong.

This is another tips? Reading all the points, I feel that another
point about checking the "make" warnings and/or running the test suite
should be added. A good indication is that there is no link to
"Running the Test Suite".

What do you think?
Pierre Neidhardt Dec. 2, 2019, 12:46 p.m. UTC | #3 
zimoun <zimon.toutoune@gmail.com> writes:

> On Mon, 2 Dec 2019 at 13:16, Pierre Neidhardt <mail@ambrevar.xyz> wrote:
>>
>> I'm actually not sure about one thing: Does `guix pull` catch the errors
>> of `make`?
>
> What is the point of this advice? Check if "guix pull" is broken,
> right? I think "guix pull -n --url=foo" does the job, isn't it?
>
>> I believe that make can output useful warnings, which maybe not bother
>> `guix pull`, but maybe I'm wrong.
>
> This is another tips? Reading all the points, I feel that another
> point about checking the "make" warnings and/or running the test suite
> should be added.

Why not.

> A good indication is that there is no link to
> "Running the Test Suite".
>
> What do you think?

CC-ing guix-devel.
Simon Tournier Dec. 2, 2019, 12:48 p.m. UTC | #4 
I do not find any test about "guix pull" in the test suite. I was
expecting e.g., "guix-pull.sh" or "pull.scm". Do I misread something?
Simon Tournier Dec. 2, 2019, 12:52 p.m. UTC | #5 
On Mon, 2 Dec 2019 at 13:46, Pierre Neidhardt <mail@ambrevar.xyz> wrote:

> CC-ing guix-devel.

If guix-devel is CC-ed, then let talk about the tests of "guix pull"
in the test suite. :-)

I do not find any test about "guix pull" in the test suite. I was
expecting e.g., "guix-pull.sh" or "pull.scm". Do I misread something?
diff mbox series

Patch

diff --git a/doc/contributing.texi b/doc/contributing.texi
index ee72b2f94d..8001b0aef1 100644
--- a/doc/contributing.texi
+++ b/doc/contributing.texi
@@ -961,6 +961,15 @@  often better to clone the repository.  Don't use
the @command{name} field in
 the URL: it is not very useful and if the name changes, the URL will probably
 be wrong.

+@item
+Make sure your changes do not break @command{guix pull}:
+
+@example
+guix pull --dry-run --url=/path/to/your/checkout
+@end example
+
+(see @pxref{Invoking guix pull}).
+
 @end enumerate