From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: zimoun Subject: Re: bug#38529: Make --ad-hoc the default for guix environment proposed deprecation mechanism Date: Fri, 20 Dec 2019 12:40:30 +0100 Message-ID: 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: In-Reply-To: <87zhfn3hgj.fsf@web.de> List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Errors-To: guix-devel-bounces+gcggd-guix-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Sender: "Guix-devel" To: Arne Babenhauserheide Cc: Guix Devel , bug-guix@gnu.org, 38529@debbugs.gnu.org List-Id: bug-guix.gnu.org Hi Arne, On Fri, 20 Dec 2019 at 02:37, Arne Babenhauserheide wrote= : > > Or are you (maybe a bit) "overreacting" about the backward compatibilit= y? > > I don=E2=80=99t think so. I am definitely reacting strongly, but that=E2= =80=99s because > breakages in Guix have already cost me the evenings of several weeks > this year. > > But before I write anything more, I=E2=80=99d like to ask you to take a s= tep > back to breathe. > > We=E2=80=99re discussing a change in software. We disagree on the way for= ward, > but I=E2=80=99m not attacking you as a person, and I hope it does not fee= l that > way to you. > > If it does: This is not my intention. Please take a moment to sigh > deeply, shake your head, relax, and smile =E2=80=94 because that actually= helps. > It=E2=80=99s what I try to do when discussions get vexing. > > I am grateful that you=E2=80=99re taking up improvements in Guix, and the= re are > situations where viewpoints are different. That is OK. I am fine. :-) Life is about managing disagreements. And I am probably a typical grouchy French. ;-) Well, if we go back in time, the story is: - the original author of "guix environment" is not happy with the current behaviour and proposes a change (see "The future of 'guix environment'"). - life happens (v1.0) but not this change. - I am not happy with the current behaviour and other on IRC neither. - a plan to change is opened for discussions. The first concern by Ludo is about the compatibility. Then Konrad raises concrete examples. At this point, my personal opinion is: the cost is low so the change can ha= ppen. However, I agree with the "backward compatibility" issue and even I propose a name for this "new" command: "guix shell". 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. Then, your following answer is more about your feelings than concrete examples. It is hard to know in advance how many scripts or use-cases would be broken -- i.e., estimate the cost -- and a way is to probe; say: "it will break X of my scripts" or "in my institute, X people use "guix environment blabla" daily, so it is not an option", etc. Otherwise, it is unproductive. Well, instead of arguing about feelings because it is going nowhere or at better a flame war about "backward compatibility", I prefer going to spend my time elsewhere (still about Guix :-)). I mean, I proposed, I said my opinion and I called to collect more opinions. I feel I did my best on this front and other fronts deserve proposals and fixes. Kind regards, simon ps: Note that I did a proposal which could be a path to reduce the burden of "guix pull" breakage: adding tags. Feel free to comment. https://lists.gnu.org/archive/html/guix-devel/2019-11/msg00513.html