From debbugs-submit-bounces@debbugs.gnu.org Tue Oct 27 15:19:26 2020 Received: (at 44193) by debbugs.gnu.org; 27 Oct 2020 19:19:26 +0000 Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1]:45912 helo=debbugs.gnu.org) by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.84_2) (envelope-from ) id 1kXUVC-000364-4y for submit@debbugs.gnu.org; Tue, 27 Oct 2020 15:19:26 -0400 Received: from mail-wm1-f68.google.com ([209.85.128.68]:40316) by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.84_2) (envelope-from ) id 1kXUVA-00035q-R8 for 44193@debbugs.gnu.org; Tue, 27 Oct 2020 15:19:25 -0400 Received: by mail-wm1-f68.google.com with SMTP id k18so2588386wmj.5 for <44193@debbugs.gnu.org>; Tue, 27 Oct 2020 12:19:24 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20161025; h=from:to:cc:subject:references:date:in-reply-to:message-id :user-agent:mime-version:content-transfer-encoding; bh=d7PyFEerk8tzZbe281JFioEJ13Of2LKAs8e765+ccCY=; b=KA5poTJvhjmwByLkU/uVW2nxk8RdwsJ7pXjHa6fmeciqiTy9IJ0zw5R12mi4Z4YZYC iM8flIoApbD0qZ3Buey30EcXI+kHjLAtBa3SR2lDJcFuOLqhIOY7X0EijXMHrxmAI0Sp r1/bFMcoZOYq4Q2MDEDXCE874ZDPMGP2gmAIyy+iGiC1soBFXGLfqAnvUSVh/eOUxz9y N0Dzq/U24YHmRaWjJvxSVtoUzAOa+1/JmoIlr2BLmVzuFwoCq9EvM873aSU2Un6lVYrl 7TlKKW7Z/yT0YU6yAaRP4U8LMLpCYwFUyBHZq8MWEOmVRFkUsAbRNI0j+yfmjzp+c5cA BHBw== X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:from:to:cc:subject:references:date:in-reply-to :message-id:user-agent:mime-version:content-transfer-encoding; bh=d7PyFEerk8tzZbe281JFioEJ13Of2LKAs8e765+ccCY=; b=mllDfKglTs34ViG5CpHSpOOZUXCYfvy51voEJfskahExBcBwKj37xs1i9xhN2IEXnF pUC8mPf8nm5BkOeUUaJ340N8ojI3Kp3NPCF2DSavzy2fmxacRZOGRdO63LYOfnpPbxyd GqvnJazSRa0D7qtvm60xmiYs+SoyrKvE7ts5JhahjmPq+/nXLb2wcW8r0/3PKrFC/QKQ TCI+Z6cN7xNwCOdZb1VPIU4pIswBYBPNyVVYNuo8K76InrnCG9WDb71wmHBClecFM3Qb FFb9xTM1JyCWlmMZIgNilrfNN2KMdk4Y4I8VNLwok8FTKhoqLunjlZC+vBR7t4+torsR R6xw== X-Gm-Message-State: AOAM5323i8P9KtkAALIXNR5/dOH0Wmyc5OqD5D48V+ZrtFP7R8sBEiBE +XxwH4fVSYreKnpwQjpkdCHnMNA1YqvCzg== X-Google-Smtp-Source: ABdhPJwi1hrX4IoxfkFWY8uAHkOAwyIsP9L7kDAOswhn9f1Qx2Hc35e/kgEgYT5yYCSEuc+Q7hKEqg== X-Received: by 2002:a1c:3503:: with SMTP id c3mr4183261wma.43.1603826358766; Tue, 27 Oct 2020 12:19:18 -0700 (PDT) Received: from unfall (218.139.134.37.dynamic.jazztel.es. [37.134.139.218]) by smtp.gmail.com with ESMTPSA id u3sm3302598wrq.19.2020.10.27.12.19.17 (version=TLS1_3 cipher=TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 bits=256/256); Tue, 27 Oct 2020 12:19:17 -0700 (PDT) From: =?utf-8?Q?Miguel_=C3=81ngel_Arruga_Vivas?= To: Ludovic =?utf-8?Q?Court=C3=A8s?= Subject: Re: [bug#44193] [PATCH 0/1] 'guix publish --cache' can publish items not yet cached References: <20201024144929.4529-1-ludo@gnu.org> <87v9ey5u2e.fsf@gmail.com> <87pn56dzdp.fsf@gnu.org> <874kmiqkla.fsf@gmail.com> <87r1plb6sd.fsf@gnu.org> Date: Tue, 27 Oct 2020 20:19:17 +0100 In-Reply-To: <87r1plb6sd.fsf@gnu.org> ("Ludovic =?utf-8?Q?Court=C3=A8s=22'?= =?utf-8?Q?s?= message of "Mon, 26 Oct 2020 11:50:10 +0100") Message-ID: <87eeljo4sq.fsf@gmail.com> User-Agent: Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13) Emacs/27.1 (gnu/linux) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable X-Spam-Score: 0.2 (/) X-Debbugs-Envelope-To: 44193 Cc: 44193@debbugs.gnu.org X-BeenThere: debbugs-submit@debbugs.gnu.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.18 Precedence: list List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Errors-To: debbugs-submit-bounces@debbugs.gnu.org Sender: "Debbugs-submit" X-Spam-Score: -0.8 (/) Hi, Ludovic Court=C3=A8s writes: > Hi, > > Miguel =C3=81ngel Arruga Vivas skribis: > >> I fully agree with that. Adding 202 together with 404 would be enough >> as an start, wouldn't it? >> -------------------------------8<----------------------------- >> (cache-narinfo! url (hash-part->path hash-part) #f >> (if (or (=3D 404 code) (=3D 202 code)) >> ttl >> %narinfo-transient-error-ttl)) >> ------------------------------->8----------------------------- > > Yes, exactly! Should I, or you, push this before the release? It's probably worth having it already for 1.2. The optimization could be cool too: IIUC could be only the other if branch the one returning the 202 when it's widely accepted, perhaps I should have explicitly pointed out that earlier instead of driving too much the conversation to the return code, sorry for that. :-( Happy hacking! Miguel