From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Alex Sassmannshausen Subject: bug#22629: =?UTF-8?Q?=E2=80=9CStable=E2=80=9D?= branch Date: Thu, 30 Aug 2018 16:10:20 +0200 Message-ID: <87wos8lzcj.fsf@pompo.co> References: <87vb5vsffd.fsf@gnu.org> <87pny2iks2.fsf@gnu.org> <877ekagtg9.fsf@netris.org> <87zhx5msfl.fsf@pompo.co> <87lg8pccys.fsf_-_@netris.org> <87zhx59gh3.fsf@elephly.net> <875zzs9wzl.fsf@netris.org> <874lfcxd2v.fsf_-_@gnu.org> Reply-To: alex@pompo.co Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Return-path: Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([2001:4830:134:3::10]:49630) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1fvNfB-0006Tm-Ha for bug-guix@gnu.org; Thu, 30 Aug 2018 10:11:10 -0400 Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1fvNf5-0001h0-9M for bug-guix@gnu.org; Thu, 30 Aug 2018 10:11:08 -0400 Received: from debbugs.gnu.org ([208.118.235.43]:34237) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtps (TLS1.0:RSA_AES_128_CBC_SHA1:16) (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1fvNf4-0001gf-HG for bug-guix@gnu.org; Thu, 30 Aug 2018 10:11:02 -0400 Received: from Debian-debbugs by debbugs.gnu.org with local (Exim 4.84_2) (envelope-from ) id 1fvNf4-0000pM-9T for bug-guix@gnu.org; Thu, 30 Aug 2018 10:11:02 -0400 Sender: "Debbugs-submit" Resent-Message-ID: In-reply-to: <874lfcxd2v.fsf_-_@gnu.org> 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: Ludovic =?UTF-8?Q?Court=C3=A8s?= Cc: 22629@debbugs.gnu.org Ludovic Court=C3=A8s writes: > Hi Konrad, > > Konrad Hinsen skribis: > >> The minimal stable foundation would have to include the file system >> layout of profiles, to make sure that users can mix packages from both >> versions safely. It would also be highly desirable to share the store, >> whose layout would then have to be part of the foundation as well. >> >> Moreover, I suspect it would be preferable or even necessary to have >> only one daemon running - if that's true, then the daemon's >> communication protocol would have be part of the foundation as well. >> >> Without a common foundation, a stable version would have to be a >> completely autonomous fork, which should then probably adopt a different >> name as well. I don't think this is desirable, in particular for GuixSD >> which would lose most of its interest if it required multiple package >> managers. > > These are all things that very rarely, if ever, changed over the last 5 > years. I expect the change rate to remain the same. :-) > > You seem to be arguing of a =E2=80=9Cstable=E2=80=9D branch in the sense = that the Guix > tools (the CLI in particular) wouldn=E2=80=99t change much, is that corre= ct? > > I=E2=80=99m asking because there are several ways to define =E2=80=9Cstab= le.=E2=80=9D Initially > I thought what you had in mind was like the =E2=80=9Cstable=E2=80=9D bran= ch in Debian, > meaning that packages only get security updates. To me that=E2=80=99s a > different thing. I don't know if this is what Konrad desires, but from my perspective, a desirable part of the definition of stable would be a that the build farms have produced a set of binaries/substitutes for a given Guix revision that is "good enough". Where good enough might mean something like "no more build failures than the previous iteration", or "no more build failures on common desktop applications" or other some exciting metric (the exact definition is not really important right now). The main concern here would be that we try to avoid end users from having unexpected build failures or even missing substitutes after doing a guix pull. Alex