From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Konrad Hinsen Subject: bug#38529: Make --ad-hoc the default for guix environment proposed deprecation mechanism Date: Wed, 18 Dec 2019 10:43:46 +0100 Message-ID: References: <87eexeu8mo.fsf@ambrevar.xyz> <87k16vdise.fsf@gnu.org> 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]:51902) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1ihVsA-0003yG-Tz for bug-guix@gnu.org; Wed, 18 Dec 2019 04:44:04 -0500 Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1ihVs9-0003Iu-T0 for bug-guix@gnu.org; Wed, 18 Dec 2019 04:44:02 -0500 Received: from debbugs.gnu.org ([209.51.188.43]:36713) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtps (TLS1.0:RSA_AES_128_CBC_SHA1:16) (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1ihVs9-0003I8-Ow for bug-guix@gnu.org; Wed, 18 Dec 2019 04:44:01 -0500 Received: from Debian-debbugs by debbugs.gnu.org with local (Exim 4.84_2) (envelope-from ) id 1ihVs9-00029E-Lj for bug-guix@gnu.org; Wed, 18 Dec 2019 04:44:01 -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: Guix Devel , 38529@debbugs.gnu.org Hi Simon, > Maybe I miss a point. It is not: "watch out, this will do something > else in the future" but "watch out, this was doing something else in > the past and the change happened the in ". Concrete example: I am writing a tutorial about using Guix for reproducible research. It shows several uses of "guix environment", some of them without '=E2=80=93add-hoc' or '=E2=80=93inputs-of'. I know my examp= les will cease to work in a few months. What am I supposed to do about this? > First, I am not convinced that there is not so much scripts that will > be broken. And second, I am not convinced neither that these very > scripts need time-traveling. Perhaps it's just me, but I use "guix environment" quite a lot in scripts, in order to make them more reproducible. Here's a simple example: #!/usr/bin/env bash guix environment --container --ad-hoc gcc-toolchain <> The first rule of backwards-compatibility is: never change the meaning >> of an existing valid command/API. Add new valid syntax, deprecate old >> valid syntax, but don't change the meaning of something that was and >> will be valid. > > I agree on the rule. > But it is mitigated but the number of users and the popularity of the too= l. ;-) Indeed! > Yes, it is probably the most adequate to do. But it is sad to loose > the good name "guix environment"... and we know that naming is hard. > ;-) I definitely agree. As a lesson for the future, maybe we should use not-so-nice names for new commands during a kind of beta-testing phase. Cheers, Konrad