From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: ng0 Subject: Re: We need an RFC procedure [Re: Services can now have a default value] Date: Sun, 23 Apr 2017 12:02:18 +0000 Message-ID: <20170423120218.eaoawn5gucwirpq4@abyayala> References: <8737d32abz.fsf@zancanaro.id.au> <87bmrr4ghh.fsf@gnu.org> <874lxjnzyx.fsf@zancanaro.id.au> <87bmrp8lk6.fsf@gnu.org> <8737d1nxbd.fsf@zancanaro.id.au> <20170422004634.4oedqmsebpctjqk4@abyayala> <878tmsud8m.fsf@elephly.net> <20170422100811.mr3t5rgh6n44xvdk@abyayala> <87pog4gihe.fsf@gnu.org> <87wpabsa71.fsf@elephly.net> 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]:42773) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1d2GDh-0004TC-Km for guix-devel@gnu.org; Sun, 23 Apr 2017 08:02:26 -0400 Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1d2GDe-0002Hw-Jb for guix-devel@gnu.org; Sun, 23 Apr 2017 08:02:25 -0400 Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <87wpabsa71.fsf@elephly.net> 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: Ricardo Wurmus Cc: guix-devel , Carlo Zancanaro Ricardo Wurmus transcribed 1.0K bytes: >=20 > Ludovic Court=C3=A8s writes: >=20 > > As for posting the change before applying it, I should do more of tha= t. > > I=E2=80=99ve taken the bad habit of pushing what I consider as =E2=80= =9Csimple=E2=80=9D changes > > directly to the repo, but perhaps the criteria should be reconsidered= . > > :-) >=20 > I think it=E2=80=99s fine to push simple changes directly. There hasn=E2= =80=99t been a > single instance when you pushed something where I thought that it > shouldn=E2=80=99t have been pushed. >=20 > Between releases we are free to change things; they only have to be > mentioned in the ChangeLog for the next release. ABI breakage can get = a > little annoying if one doesn=E2=80=99t know about it and the compilatio= n fails > with unclear errors. >=20 > It=E2=80=99s a little unfortunate that packages are developed together = with > everything else, because this means that there is no way for people to > opt out of breaking changes until the next release without also opting > out of getting any updates at all. >=20 > -- > Ricardo >=20 > GPG: BCA6 89B6 3655 3801 C3C6 2150 197A 5888 235F ACAC > https://elephly.net In my opinion it is simple as long as nothing else is affected (or affect= ed parts are changed at the same time). In other words, if it touches the way services, packages etc are compossed or definitions which (canoni= cally) happen to be in the system config, it should be communicated in advance. I think almost no change Ludovic commited in the time I'm involved broke = something, even if it wasn't simple changes. To discuss changes doesn't hold them back, it gives others a clear view on what is happening, on the intentions and maybe to help fix mistakes in advance. I don't think anyone produces intenionally bad code, it's just a differen= ce if you develop in reaction to changes you only know about once they are p= ushed (or once feature branches are completed) or if you can discuss about them= . In the first case it's an isolated effort which ressembles a group to the= outside, in the second case it's getting closer to community work. --=20 PGP and more: https://people.pragmatique.xyz/ng0/