bug#22629: Channels not needed for a stable branch (was: Channels!)

[Konrad Hinsen <konrad.hinsen@fastmail.net>]

Hi Ricardo,

> I also agree with you that we don’t need channels for providing a stable
> branch.  The biggest obstacle to providing a stable branch is not
> technical, but it requires people maintaining it.

Look at this from the opposite end: if you were interested in
maintaining a stable software distribution, would you choose a quickly
evolving package manager such as Guix as the basis? I'd say no, and I am
speaking from experience because I did actually maintain stable software
installations for a couple of years. You want to concentrate on critical
bug fixes and avoid anything else that could perturb the stability of
your system.

For me this whole discussion isn't about technicalities. Channels are
just a convenience layer on top of what can already be done with
GUIX_PACKAGE_PATH and manifest files. The real issue is how such
features are advertised: as a way to bolt on your own developments,
following Guix evolution closely, or as a way to provide decoupled
autonomous branches such as stable software.

So I agree with Ludo that a communication along the lines of

> I had this example in mind too: the kernel technically supports
> out-of-tree modules, but kernel developers have always resisted pressure
> to freeze APIs.
>
> Because this policy has been stated upfront very clearly and has
> remained unchanged, out-of-tree module developers know that that the
> compatibility burden is on them.  There’s flexibility, along with a
> strong incentive to get things in the mainline kernel.

should be sufficient to avoid the issue that Mark has raised here.
But it also discourages people interested in stable software
installations from using or contributing to Guix.

Konrad.