From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
From: Ludovic =?UTF-8?Q?Court=C3=A8s?= <ludo@gnu.org>
Subject: bug#38529: Make --ad-hoc the default for guix environment proposed
 deprecation mechanism
Date: Mon, 30 Dec 2019 16:06:04 +0100
Message-ID: <87tv5h7t0j.fsf@gnu.org>
References: <87eexeu8mo.fsf@ambrevar.xyz>
 <CAE4v=phY+7CTKMf8Y3a9p4okfqtMGOWu9kd2Nu6oCJW8OsK3Lw@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAJ3okZ3+-yAfRpYDHz-jYONguOPWjff0iWZ_7NPEz6x5mbOO1w@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAE4v=piMnBhHWpbB60qMRnnDNwqkuddfNv7cEihr9+5-52k2OA@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAJ3okZ3gJDdDKWERLANp+7ueSirEZ7hH=YKa3nhCAzCzAz1TGg@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAE4v=pgevGwP6+jSY-+0DPdtvK60sEvd-uibqhRawuo6N1pL-Q@mail.gmail.com>
 <87k16vdise.fsf@gnu.org>
 <e992ac46-37b9-ba12-83cc-6694427acd31@fastmail.net>
 <CAJ3okZ0Fw=02cDwdn5GuiDCyUNOUY=YaGyrFyHE5qWsOQTLASQ@mail.gmail.com>
 <m1pngmrmst.fsf@khs-macbook.home> <87zhfp2w11.fsf@web.de>
 <CAJ3okZ3bHnOzOk2Cdtvh_NZbYGDfA+zzxrAsJk+7=gRYHaL7jw@mail.gmail.com>
 <871rt03shq.fsf@web.de>
 <CAJ3okZ3gwpjy2cgRj1iOtPX0cTSVBLoxSVaUBxnMEsMCVNUyFg@mail.gmail.com>
 <87zhfn3hgj.fsf@web.de>
 <CAJ3okZ2XTAbPp0m7TQqCEi_oz223HyBd0BZefRO4Q90xmni2mw@mail.gmail.com>
 <87tv5upttv.fsf@elephly.net> <87o8w1mxjt.fsf@gnu.org>
 <87blrqp2pp.fsf@euandre.org> <878smu85kw.fsf@gnu.org>
 <CAJ3okZ3jjB8kRRN3xqv7VWn0ba_Qwm8jDWUUiodXi+NtQwWsLA@mail.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 ([2001:470:142:3::10]:40085)
 by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.90_1)
 (envelope-from <Debian-debbugs@debbugs.gnu.org>) id 1ilwdL-0005zY-Rw
 for bug-guix@gnu.org; Mon, 30 Dec 2019 10:07:04 -0500
Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71)
 (envelope-from <Debian-debbugs@debbugs.gnu.org>) id 1ilwdK-00015O-SV
 for bug-guix@gnu.org; Mon, 30 Dec 2019 10:07:03 -0500
Received: from debbugs.gnu.org ([209.51.188.43]:55430)
 by eggs.gnu.org with esmtps (TLS1.0:RSA_AES_128_CBC_SHA1:16)
 (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from <Debian-debbugs@debbugs.gnu.org>)
 id 1ilwdK-00015I-PM
 for bug-guix@gnu.org; Mon, 30 Dec 2019 10:07:02 -0500
Received: from Debian-debbugs by debbugs.gnu.org with local (Exim 4.84_2)
 (envelope-from <Debian-debbugs@debbugs.gnu.org>) id 1ilwdK-0002Rw-Jq
 for bug-guix@gnu.org; Mon, 30 Dec 2019 10:07:02 -0500
Sender: "Debbugs-submit" <debbugs-submit-bounces@debbugs.gnu.org>
Resent-Message-ID: <handler.38529.B38529.15777183799362@debbugs.gnu.org>
In-Reply-To: <CAJ3okZ3jjB8kRRN3xqv7VWn0ba_Qwm8jDWUUiodXi+NtQwWsLA@mail.gmail.com>
 (zimoun's message of "Mon, 30 Dec 2019 13:03:19 +0100")
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: <https://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: zimoun <zimon.toutoune@gmail.com>
Cc: EuAndreh <eu@euandre.org>, GNU Guix maintainers <guix-maintainers@gnu.org>, 38529@debbugs.gnu.org

Hello!

zimoun <zimon.toutoune@gmail.com> skribis:

> On Mon, 30 Dec 2019 at 11:35, Ludovic Court=C3=A8s <ludo@gnu.org> wrote:
>
>> > Wouldn't having a new name for the new behaviour avoid breakage in this
>> > situation?
>>
>> Yes, that=E2=80=99s correct (that=E2=80=99s also one of the suggestions =
Konrad made).
>
> Is this statement acted? Is it the consensus by all the maintainers?

All I=E2=80=99m saying is that what EuAndreh wrote above is correct; I=E2=
=80=99m not
stating anything as to what solution we should implement.  :-)

> And I am not clear about what will happens for "guix environment"?
> Deprecate for sure.
> But after X time: removed or frozen?

I guess that=E2=80=99s the whole point of deprecation.

> As Arne described the process (bottom of [1]), "guix environment" will
> become a kind-of alias of "guix shell/<name-it>". Right?

Yes.

>> We could take that route.  What would we call it, though?  I don=E2=80=
=99t like
>> =E2=80=9Cguix shell=E2=80=9D because it doesn=E2=80=99t quite reflect wh=
at the command is
>> about.  No good idea, though.
>
> Argh! Naming is hard.
> Something that reflects what the command is about: "guix environment"?
> (joke!! ;-))

Yeah!

> Why do you say that "guix shell" does not reflect what the command is abo=
ut?
> 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.

Thanks,
Ludo=E2=80=99.