From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Mark H Weaver Subject: bug#22629: Channels not needed for a stable branch Date: Thu, 30 Aug 2018 02:42:06 -0400 Message-ID: <875zzs9wzl.fsf@netris.org> References: <87vb5vsffd.fsf@gnu.org> <87pny2iks2.fsf@gnu.org> <877ekagtg9.fsf@netris.org> <87zhx5msfl.fsf@pompo.co> <87lg8pccys.fsf_-_@netris.org> <87zhx59gh3.fsf@elephly.net> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Return-path: Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([2001:4830:134:3::10]:46813) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1fvGi2-0008Mk-IV for bug-guix@gnu.org; Thu, 30 Aug 2018 02:45:42 -0400 Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1fvGgU-0001MP-Qq for bug-guix@gnu.org; Thu, 30 Aug 2018 02:44:06 -0400 Received: from debbugs.gnu.org ([208.118.235.43]:32817) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtps (TLS1.0:RSA_AES_128_CBC_SHA1:16) (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1fvGgU-0001MC-Md for bug-guix@gnu.org; Thu, 30 Aug 2018 02:44:02 -0400 Received: from Debian-debbugs by debbugs.gnu.org with local (Exim 4.84_2) (envelope-from ) id 1fvGgU-0000Js-Go for bug-guix@gnu.org; Thu, 30 Aug 2018 02:44:02 -0400 Sender: "Debbugs-submit" Resent-Message-ID: In-Reply-To: (Konrad Hinsen's message of "Thu, 30 Aug 2018 07:57:55 +0200") List-Id: Bug reports for GNU Guix List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Errors-To: bug-guix-bounces+gcggb-bug-guix=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Sender: "bug-Guix" To: Konrad Hinsen Cc: 22629@debbugs.gnu.org Konrad Hinsen writes: >> I also agree with you that we don=E2=80=99t need channels for providing = a stable >> branch. The biggest obstacle to providing a stable branch is not >> technical, but it requires people maintaining it. > > Look at this from the opposite end: if you were interested in > maintaining a stable software distribution, would you choose a quickly > evolving package manager such as Guix as the basis? I'd say no, and I am > speaking from experience because I did actually maintain stable software > installations for a couple of years. You want to concentrate on critical > bug fixes and avoid anything else that could perturb the stability of > your system. I'm not sure what you're trying to argue above. To me, it looks like an argument in favor of my position, namely that a stable version of Guix should include _all_ of Guix, not just the packages. If you want to maintain a stable distribution, why would you want to combine stable package descriptions with quickly evolving infrastructure that makes up the rest of Guix? If you want stability, wouldn't it be better to keep a stable branch of _all_ of Guix, so that both the package descriptions _and_ the infrastructure upon which those packages depend are kept stable? This is exactly what a 'stable' branch in a git repository would provide, and moreover "guix pull" already has everything that's needed to support this. All that's needed are people to maintain such a branch. If we again compare this to Linux (the kernel project) and their refusal to support out-of-tree drivers: I'm arguing in favor of the Linux approach, where stable kernels are based on git branches that include a _all_ of Linux. Your position, transposed to Linux, would seem to be in favor of third-parties supporting stable drivers, which would then be combined with the latest version of the rest of the kernel. Am I misunderstanding your argument? Can you please clarify? Mark