bug#61989: closed ([PATCH 00/11] Adding Gocryptfs (feature branch))

[GNU bug Tracking System]

Your message dated Tue, 28 Mar 2023 16:37:03 -0400
with message-id <ZCNP79nFCBBrk/qC@jasmine.lan>
and subject line Re: [bug#61989] [PATCH 00/11] Adding Gocryptfs (feature branch)
has caused the debbugs.gnu.org bug report #61989,
regarding [PATCH 00/11] Adding Gocryptfs (feature branch)
to be marked as done.

(If you believe you have received this mail in error, please contact
help-debbugs@gnu.org.)


-- 
61989: https://debbugs.gnu.org/cgi/bugreport.cgi?bug=61989
GNU Bug Tracking System
Contact help-debbugs@gnu.org with problems
> --- Begin Message ---
>
>
>
> Subject: 
>
> [PATCH 00/11] Adding Gocryptfs (feature branch)
>
>
>
>
> Date: 
>
> Sun,  5 Mar 2023 12:52:11 -0800
>
>
>
>
> After a discussion on #guix, someone asked me to request a feature branch
> here, as well as an associated jobset for ci.guix.gnu.org.
>
> I think we are hoping to use this patch series as a proof-of-concept for the
> idea of feature branches. Thanks!
>
> Felix Lechner (11):
>   gnu: go-golang-org-x-sys: Update to 0.4.0.
>   gnu: go-golang-org-x-net: Update to 0.5.0.
>   gnu: Add go-github-com-hanwen-go-fuse-v2.
>   gnu: Add go-github-com-aperturerobotics-jacobsa-crypto.
>   gnu: Add go-github-com-jacobsa-oglematchers.
>   gnu: Add go-github-com-jacobsa-oglemock.
>   gnu: Add go-github-com-jacobsa-ogletest.
>   gnu: Add go-github-com-jacobsa-reqtrace.
>   gnu: Add go-github-com-pkg-xattr.
>   gnu: Add go-github-com-rfjakob-eme.
>   gnu: Add gocryptfs.
>
>  gnu/packages/file-systems.scm |  74 +++++++++
>  gnu/packages/golang.scm       | 274 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++---
>  2 files changed, 328 insertions(+), 20 deletions(-)
>
>
> base-commit: 4775460ba9a60c3c09966216da10686a70b8fadb
> -- 
> 2.39.1
>
>
>
>
> --- End Message ---
> --- Begin Message ---
>
>
>
> Subject: 
>
> Re: [bug#61989] [PATCH 00/11] Adding Gocryptfs (feature branch)
>
>
>
>
> Date: 
>
> Tue, 28 Mar 2023 16:37:03 -0400
>
>
>
>
> On Sun, Mar 19, 2023 at 02:31:18PM -0700, Felix Lechner wrote:
> > That looks very respectable to me for such a comprehensive change, but
> > I can ultimately not assess whether it's a good ratio.
>
> Agreed, I think it looks good.
>
> > It looks like perhaps seven items are failing due to our changes (on
> > x86_64, and out of about six hundred) but I do not know how important
> > they are for average Guix users.
>
> Perhaps, but the Cuirass web interface doesn't make it easy to compare
> and see which packages are failing as a result of these changes.  And
> qa.guix.gnu.org doesn't yet build changes with this large of an impact.
>
> So, I've gone ahead and pushed as
> c4cca9cb5d3e93ef146acb930a95da9d2da6fb06
>
>
> --- End Message ---