From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
From: ludo@gnu.org (Ludovic =?UTF-8?Q?Court=C3=A8s?=)
Subject: bug#22587: =?UTF-8?Q?=E2=80=98guix_?= =?UTF-8?Q?edit=E2=80=99?= &
	=?UTF-8?Q?=E2=80=98M-x?= guix-edit' typo, rename, & mode change
Date: Sat, 04 Jun 2016 13:21:46 +0200
Message-ID: <87shwt19o5.fsf@gnu.org>
References: <8737t4jt1j.fsf@gmail.com> <87oabrr460.fsf@gmail.com>
	<87twlj6op5.fsf@gmail.com> <878u0bia77.fsf@gmail.com>
	<87h9ey95mt.fsf@gnu.org> <87y48ahuza.fsf@gmail.com>
	<8760vd7tzs.fsf@gnu.org> <87ega07nl1.fsf@gmail.com>
	<87shygthz8.fsf@gnu.org> <87eg9z9rek.fsf@gmail.com>
	<87porz2xc4.fsf@gnu.org> <87r3ce9jrr.fsf@gmail.com>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Return-path: <bug-guix-bounces+gcggb-bug-guix=m.gmane.org@gnu.org>
Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([2001:4830:134:3::10]:43099)
	by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71)
	(envelope-from <Debian-debbugs@debbugs.gnu.org>) id 1b99ee-00019Z-Ry
	for bug-guix@gnu.org; Sat, 04 Jun 2016 07:22:17 -0400
Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71)
	(envelope-from <Debian-debbugs@debbugs.gnu.org>) id 1b99eU-0006ic-L4
	for bug-guix@gnu.org; Sat, 04 Jun 2016 07:22:11 -0400
Received: from debbugs.gnu.org ([208.118.235.43]:41448)
	by eggs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71)
	(envelope-from <Debian-debbugs@debbugs.gnu.org>) id 1b99eU-0006iY-HY
	for bug-guix@gnu.org; Sat, 04 Jun 2016 07:22:02 -0400
Received: from Debian-debbugs by debbugs.gnu.org with local (Exim 4.84_2)
	(envelope-from <Debian-debbugs@debbugs.gnu.org>) id 1b99eU-0000EZ-Db
	for bug-guix@gnu.org; Sat, 04 Jun 2016 07:22:02 -0400
Sender: "Debbugs-submit" <debbugs-submit-bounces@debbugs.gnu.org>
Resent-Message-ID: <handler.22587.B22587.1465039321889@debbugs.gnu.org>
In-Reply-To: <87r3ce9jrr.fsf@gmail.com> (Alex Kost's message of "Fri, 03 Jun
	2016 22:04:08 +0300")
List-Id: Bug reports for GNU Guix <bug-guix.gnu.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/options/bug-guix>,
	<mailto:bug-guix-request@gnu.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://lists.gnu.org/archive/html/bug-guix/>
List-Post: <mailto:bug-guix@gnu.org>
List-Help: <mailto:bug-guix-request@gnu.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/bug-guix>,
	<mailto:bug-guix-request@gnu.org?subject=subscribe>
Errors-To: bug-guix-bounces+gcggb-bug-guix=m.gmane.org@gnu.org
Sender: "bug-Guix" <bug-guix-bounces+gcggb-bug-guix=m.gmane.org@gnu.org>
To: Alex Kost <alezost@gmail.com>
Cc: 22587@debbugs.gnu.org

Alex Kost <alezost@gmail.com> skribis:

> Ludovic Court=C3=A8s (2016-06-02 22:40 +0300) wrote:
>
>> Alex Kost <alezost@gmail.com> skribis:
>>
>>> Ludovic Court=C3=A8s (2016-04-20 18:31 +0300) wrote:
>>
>> [...]
>>
>>>>>> However, I think (1) the title should describe the bug, not the
>>>>>> solution, and (2) =E2=80=98guix edit=E2=80=99 does what it says IMO,=
 even if it can
>>>>>> occasionally stumble upon read-only files.
>>>>>
>>>>> OK, well I don't know what to do with it then.  What about the follow=
ing
>>>>> title: =C2=AB"guix edit" name may be confusing=C2=BB?
>>>>
>>>> Perfect! :-)
>>>
>>> Done.
>>
>> I=E2=80=99m rather inclined to close this bug as =E2=80=98wontfix=E2=80=
=99.  Thoughts?
>
> I would prefer it to be solved by renaming "guix edit" to "guix package
> definition", but I think it will not be welcomed by most users and
> authors, so 'wontfix' is fine by me.

I=E2=80=99m of course unsure what =E2=80=9Cmost=E2=80=9D users would think,=
 but I find =E2=80=98guix
package definition=E2=80=99 too wordy and probably too hard to find for a
newcomer.

OK, marking it as wontfix, and we can always revisit the issue later if
people disagree!

Ludo=E2=80=99.