From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Eric Bavier Subject: Re: sorted inputs [was: Guix-devel Digest, Vol 37, Issue 133] Date: Thu, 21 Jul 2016 21:28:28 -0500 Message-ID: <20160721212828.35e12a08@openmailbox.org> References: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Return-path: Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([2001:4830:134:3::10]:59899) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1bQQCj-0005PY-8R for guix-devel@gnu.org; Thu, 21 Jul 2016 22:28:46 -0400 Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1bQQCf-00029J-4G for guix-devel@gnu.org; Thu, 21 Jul 2016 22:28:44 -0400 Received: from mail.openmailbox.org ([62.4.1.34]:43081) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1bQQCe-00027u-R0 for guix-devel@gnu.org; Thu, 21 Jul 2016 22:28:41 -0400 In-Reply-To: List-Id: "Development of GNU Guix and the GNU System distribution." 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: David Craven Cc: guix-devel On Thu, 21 Jul 2016 15:42:52 +0200 David Craven wrote: > > I don't think this needs to be a thing. While I personally added the > > code in the cpan importer to sort inputs by name, I recognize that > > there are also valid reasons to not do that in some packages. E.g. > > grouping a set of inputs that are all related to or required for some > > aspect of a package's functionality, etc. > > 1. A lint warning is just that a warning. I think in most cases there > is no reason > not sort them alphabetically. I'd like 'guix lint' to be useful to everyone, including first-time contributors. In that context, we can't have it start printing warnings that we don't feel are legitimate issues, causing people to start second-guessing and revisiting their contribution. One of the original motivators behind 'guix lint' was to catch issues commonly encountered during patch review. I've never seen a reviewer on this list turn back a patch because the inputs were not sorted. > 2. The ordering may seem logical to the person who wrote the package initially, > but then the next person comes along and modifies it. Over time we get a mess > and whatever structure the initial author had in mind has disappeared. As David mentioned, with proper source comments this shouldn't be an issue. `~Eric