[Nix-dev] bash updates

[Michael Raskin]

> > 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.

Previously, we saw the same approach (everything causing stdenv
rebuild gets merged at once) followed by niksnut and viric. And
stdenv updates not following this practice were rolled back
(sometimes by niksnut). 

> > What about starting looking collectively at what we’d like to have in
> > the next stdenv update, and then checking whether the branch builds
> > fine?
>
>I am sorry, but I am not sure how to interpret your suggestion.
>
>You seem to suggest that *I* look at updates to libc, GCC, etc., but
>that interpretation seems odd, and I can't believe that you intended to
>say that, because I have stated my interests in this merge quite clearly
>before. So I guess you meant to say that *you* would like to look at
>glibc, GCC, and so on? That interpretation feels odd too, though,
>because if that were your intended message, then you'd probably just do
>it, instead of talking about it. Can you please help me out by
>explaining your thoughts in more detail?

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.