From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Mark H Weaver Subject: bug#22629: Channels not needed for a stable branch (was: Channels!) Date: Wed, 29 Aug 2018 13:14:03 -0400 Message-ID: <87lg8pccys.fsf_-_@netris.org> References: <87vb5vsffd.fsf@gnu.org> <87pny2iks2.fsf@gnu.org> <877ekagtg9.fsf@netris.org> <87zhx5msfl.fsf@pompo.co> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain Return-path: Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([2001:4830:134:3::10]:56201) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1fv44d-0005Mw-8G for bug-guix@gnu.org; Wed, 29 Aug 2018 13:16:07 -0400 Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1fv44Y-0005C7-Qh for bug-guix@gnu.org; Wed, 29 Aug 2018 13:16:07 -0400 Received: from debbugs.gnu.org ([208.118.235.43]:60568) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtps (TLS1.0:RSA_AES_128_CBC_SHA1:16) (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1fv44Y-0005Bv-M6 for bug-guix@gnu.org; Wed, 29 Aug 2018 13:16:02 -0400 Received: from Debian-debbugs by debbugs.gnu.org with local (Exim 4.84_2) (envelope-from ) id 1fv44Y-00022W-CM for bug-guix@gnu.org; Wed, 29 Aug 2018 13:16:02 -0400 Sender: "Debbugs-submit" Resent-Message-ID: In-Reply-To: <87zhx5msfl.fsf@pompo.co> (Alex Sassmannshausen's message of "Wed, 29 Aug 2018 11:29:50 +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: Alex Sassmannshausen , Konrad Hinsen Cc: 22629@debbugs.gnu.org Hi, Alex Sassmannshausen writes: > My primary interest in channels at the moment comes from believing that > having a "stable" channel would be incredibly useful to increase > adoption rate of Guix. And for me. Konrad Hinsen writes: > Look at the wider Linux world: there are people who want to live on > the bleeding edge and run Arch Linux, and there are others who value > stability and run CentOS. Today's Guix is more on the bleeding edge > side. My understanding of your commment is that you would like to make > sure it stays there. But that also means severely limiting Guix' > potential user base. Both of you seem to have reached the conclusion that third-party channels are a prerequisite for having a 'stable' branch. I disagree. I agree with both of you that a 'stable' branch of Guix would be tremendously useful. I've often wanted it myself, and I still do. My point is that I want to keep our APIs internal and unfrozen for the same reason that Linux, the kernel project, does. Linux refuses to support out-of-tree drivers and modules, and thereby retains its freedom to change their internal APIs. Often they change how things work internally and this entails doing massive find-replace on every driver in the tree. This has been a crucially important factor in their long-term success. Does this stop the Linux developers from offering stable branches, or third-parties from maintaining older stable versions of Linux in their own Git repositories? Clearly not. It's been done all along. We should persue a similar model. The crucial thing is to always keep the package modules together with the rest of Guix. If you want to clone Guix to a third-party repository, I have no problem with that. Just keep it all together, and maintain the entire tree as an undivided whole. "guix pull" already supports the ability to fetch from an arbitrary branch, or even from an arbitrary upstream source, so we already have what we need to start a 'stable' branch, or for a third-party to do that if they wanted to. Regards, Mark