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: Fri, 20 Dec 2019 22:31:40 +0100 Message-ID: <87tv5upttv.fsf@elephly.net> References: <87eexeu8mo.fsf@ambrevar.xyz> <87k16vdise.fsf@gnu.org> <87zhfp2w11.fsf@web.de> <871rt03shq.fsf@web.de> <87zhfn3hgj.fsf@web.de> 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]:52703) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1iiPsW-0004Hu-E5 for bug-guix@gnu.org; Fri, 20 Dec 2019 16:32:09 -0500 Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1iiPsT-0004lY-T9 for bug-guix@gnu.org; Fri, 20 Dec 2019 16:32:07 -0500 Received: from debbugs.gnu.org ([209.51.188.43]:41344) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtps (TLS1.0:RSA_AES_128_CBC_SHA1:16) (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1iiPsQ-0004jZ-LD for bug-guix@gnu.org; Fri, 20 Dec 2019 16:32:03 -0500 Received: from Debian-debbugs by debbugs.gnu.org with local (Exim 4.84_2) (envelope-from ) id 1iiPsQ-0000fH-IC for bug-guix@gnu.org; Fri, 20 Dec 2019 16:32:02 -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: > Then you ask one question: "Should Guix be volatile software?" with > the subtitle "Software developers should avoid traumatic changes". > Nothing more. > Well, I answer you by trying to fill the gap. Note that "volatile > software" is the same argument than the Ludo's concern and the > Konrad's example. So, nothing new on the table; except you are > starting to throw "feelings" with the "traumatic change" words. I=E2=80=99m just chiming in here to say that feelings of frustration are ve= ry valid reasons to make or object to a change. Guix is or can be a very important piece of software =E2=80=94 if it remains reliable in the toolbox= of those using it. It is difficult striking the right balance between exciting new features that make things possible that were previously unattainable and dependability through stable interfaces. The Guix command line is by far the most commonly used interface. We can=E2=80=99t just claim that the Scheme API is stable (which it actually i= sn=E2=80=99t) and change the user-facing CLI as we please. Personally, I think that it is fine to introduce breaking changes, but that for changes that are likely to have a high potential for annoyance and frustration there ought to be a documented way to work around them. Breaking changes must be communicated through version number bumps and accompanying announcements. While I don=E2=80=99t see how we can make it happen, I do find the idea of a stable API whose version can be selected with an environment variable intriguing and worth thinking about. If our Scheme API is as flexible as we claim it shouldn=E2=80=99t be too hard to interpose a configuration l= ayer between the core facilities and the =E2=80=9Cporcelain=E2=80=9D. I wonder what the other maintainers think about this. -- Ricardo