From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Ricardo Wurmus Subject: bug#38529: Make --ad-hoc the default for guix environment proposed deprecation mechanism Date: Mon, 30 Dec 2019 22:10:22 +0100 Message-ID: <87eewlo6yp.fsf@elephly.net> References: <87eexeu8mo.fsf@ambrevar.xyz> <87k16vdise.fsf@gnu.org> <87zhfp2w11.fsf@web.de> <871rt03shq.fsf@web.de> <87zhfn3hgj.fsf@web.de> <87tv5upttv.fsf@elephly.net> <87o8w1mxjt.fsf@gnu.org> <87blrqp2pp.fsf@euandre.org> <878smu85kw.fsf@gnu.org> <87tv5h7t0j.fsf@gnu.org> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Return-path: Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([2001:470:142:3::10]:36474) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1im2Jc-0006q7-DK for bug-guix@gnu.org; Mon, 30 Dec 2019 16:11:05 -0500 Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1im2Ja-0006gm-IF for bug-guix@gnu.org; Mon, 30 Dec 2019 16:11:04 -0500 Received: from debbugs.gnu.org ([209.51.188.43]:55781) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtps (TLS1.0:RSA_AES_128_CBC_SHA1:16) (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1im2Ja-0006fy-8J for bug-guix@gnu.org; Mon, 30 Dec 2019 16:11:02 -0500 Received: from Debian-debbugs by debbugs.gnu.org with local (Exim 4.84_2) (envelope-from ) id 1im2Ja-0000gl-2Q for bug-guix@gnu.org; Mon, 30 Dec 2019 16:11:02 -0500 Sender: "Debbugs-submit" Resent-Message-ID: In-reply-to: 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: zimoun Cc: GNU Guix maintainers , 38529@debbugs.gnu.org zimoun writes: >> > Why do you say that "guix shell" does not reflect what the command is = about? >> > Because the command spawns a new shell with options (expanding it, >> > isolating it, etc.) >> >> The command does not necessarily spawn a new shell; it spawns a command >> in a well-defined environment, and that command might be a shell. > > What about "guix spawn"? =E2=80=9Cspawn=E2=80=9D is a very generic verb, much like =E2=80=9Center=E2= =80=9D (enter what?) or =E2=80=9Cmake=E2=80=9D. =E2=80=9Cshell=E2=80=9D has the awkward property o= f meaning different things dependent on how you interpret it: =E2=80=9Cto shell=E2=80=9D means to *rem= ove* an outer shell (like that of a nut) whereas =E2=80=9Cguix shell=E2=80=9D as a noun w= ould imply *wrapping=E2=80=9C something in a shell. It sends mixed signals. We=E2=80= =99d probably want people to understand it as =E2=80=98spawn a command line shell=E2=80= =99, but that=E2=80=99s really not the primary purpose of =E2=80=98guix environment=E2=80=99. Thinking about words some more I started to wonder: do we want verbs or nouns? We have some sub-commands that could be interpreted either way: archive gc hash Others that are primarily understood as nouns: container environment graph package processes repl size system time-machine weather And a majority that are primarily understood as verbs: build challenge copy deploy describe download edit import install lint pack publish pull refresh remove search show upgrade If we were looking for verbs that express the idea of creating an environment or to place a thing inside of an environment we could use one of these: to envelop (envelop what though? This seems to require two objects.) to arrange (kinda misses the point) to stage (in the theatric sense) to frame (not in the criminal sense) to contain (=E2=80=A6the resulting process in a possibly leaky environme= nt) to join (=E2=80=A6all these packages to form a new whole) to group (=E2=80=A6all these packages) (As a bonus: =E2=80=98to environ=E2=80=99 exists, but it suffers from the s= ame problem as =E2=80=98to envelop=E2=80=99.) Here are some nouns that might work: scene frame context union All of them are shorter than =E2=80=9Cenvironment=E2=80=9D! :) What do you think? -- Ricardo