From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from mp1 ([2001:41d0:2:4a6f::]) (using TLSv1.3 with cipher TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 (256/256 bits)) by ms11 with LMTPS id INEsNyUbzF9bQwAA0tVLHw (envelope-from ) for ; Sat, 05 Dec 2020 23:43:33 +0000 Received: from aspmx1.migadu.com ([2001:41d0:2:4a6f::]) (using TLSv1.3 with cipher TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 (256/256 bits)) by mp1 with LMTPS id YKLUMiUbzF9eBQAAbx9fmQ (envelope-from ) for ; Sat, 05 Dec 2020 23:43:33 +0000 Received: from lists.gnu.org (lists.gnu.org [209.51.188.17]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by aspmx1.migadu.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id A16B6940105 for ; Sat, 5 Dec 2020 23:43:33 +0000 (UTC) Received: from localhost ([::1]:48714 helo=lists1p.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1klhDA-0003Vu-HM for larch@yhetil.org; Sat, 05 Dec 2020 18:43:32 -0500 Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([2001:470:142:3::10]:36552) by lists.gnu.org with esmtps (TLS1.2:ECDHE_RSA_AES_256_GCM_SHA384:256) (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1klhCv-0003Vk-Ai for guix-devel@gnu.org; Sat, 05 Dec 2020 18:43:17 -0500 Received: from imta-36.everyone.net ([216.200.145.36]:47370 helo=imta-38.everyone.net) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtps (TLS1.2:ECDHE_RSA_AES_256_GCM_SHA384:256) (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1klhCr-0007i3-Gb for guix-devel@gnu.org; Sat, 05 Dec 2020 18:43:16 -0500 Received: from pps.filterd (omta002.sj2.proofpoint.com [127.0.0.1]) by imta-38.everyone.net (8.16.0.43/8.16.0.43) with SMTP id 0B5Ncr2S010837; Sat, 5 Dec 2020 15:43:02 -0800 X-Eon-Originating-Account: YgtoW_L6bOMf0U_err-rZZv5-i8Dr5qa5vBh6MFlO64 X-Eon-Dm: m0117124.ppops.net Received: by m0117124.mta.everyone.net (EON-AUTHRELAY2 - 5a81db6f) id m0117124.5f8a0284.9c3d6e; Sat, 5 Dec 2020 15:43:00 -0800 X-Eon-Sig: AQMHrIJfzBsEyDzpbAIAAAAE,65f12c7959750ca301857a3b867bef6b X-Eip: JqUEqJJXfhEQEU8E0K7R2K5-q9w8aCasJowv5vIYO5Y Date: Sun, 6 Dec 2020 00:42:51 +0100 From: Bengt Richter To: Christopher Baines Subject: Re: Questionable "cosmetic changes" commits Message-ID: <20201205234251.GA16129@LionPure> References: <87im9g4ukt.fsf@netris.org> <87lfebrk9v.fsf@cbaines.net> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: inline Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit In-Reply-To: <87lfebrk9v.fsf@cbaines.net> User-Agent: Mutt/1.10.1 (2018-07-13) X-Proofpoint-Virus-Version: vendor=fsecure engine=2.50.10434:6.0.312, 18.0.737 definitions=2020-12-05_22:2020-12-04, 2020-12-05 signatures=0 X-Proofpoint-Spam-Details: rule=notspam policy=default score=0 mlxscore=0 suspectscore=0 impostorscore=0 lowpriorityscore=0 bulkscore=0 spamscore=0 clxscore=1034 priorityscore=1501 adultscore=0 malwarescore=0 phishscore=0 mlxlogscore=999 classifier=spam adjust=0 reason=mlx scancount=1 engine=8.12.0-2009150000 definitions=main-2012050163 Received-SPF: pass client-ip=216.200.145.36; envelope-from=bokr@oz.net; helo=imta-38.everyone.net X-Spam_score_int: -22 X-Spam_score: -2.3 X-Spam_bar: -- X-Spam_report: (-2.3 / 5.0 requ) BAYES_00=-1.9, HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS=0.25, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-0.7, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H3=0.001, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_WL=0.001, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001 autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no X-Spam_action: no action X-BeenThere: guix-devel@gnu.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.23 Precedence: list List-Id: "Development of GNU Guix and the GNU System distribution." List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Reply-To: Bengt Richter Cc: guix-devel@gnu.org, Raghav Gururajan , Ryan Prior Errors-To: guix-devel-bounces+larch=yhetil.org@gnu.org Sender: "Guix-devel" X-Migadu-Flow: FLOW_IN X-Migadu-Spam-Score: -1.80 Authentication-Results: aspmx1.migadu.com; dkim=none; dmarc=none; spf=pass (aspmx1.migadu.com: domain of guix-devel-bounces@gnu.org designates 209.51.188.17 as permitted sender) smtp.mailfrom=guix-devel-bounces@gnu.org X-Migadu-Queue-Id: A16B6940105 X-Spam-Score: -1.80 X-Migadu-Scanner: ns3122888.ip-94-23-21.eu X-TUID: t2DTD5a+UmWC Hi Christopher and Raghav, On +2020-12-05 21:54:36 +0000, Christopher Baines wrote: > > Raghav Gururajan writes: > > > Hi Mark! > > > >> Meanwhile, you've only provided a rationale for 1 out of 3 of the kinds > >> of changes made in these commits. > >> > >> Do you have an explanation for why you are removing comments in your > >> "cosmetic changes" commits? For example, the following two commits > >> remove comments that explain why 'propagated-inputs' are needed: > >> > >> https://git.sv.gnu.org/cgit/guix.git/commit/?id=c3264f9e100ad6aefe5216002b68f3bfdcf6be95 > >> https://git.sv.gnu.org/cgit/guix.git/commit/?id=416b1b9f56b514677660b56992cea1c78e00f519 > >> > >> What's your rationale for doing this? Am I the only one here who finds > >> this practice objectionable? It's not even mentioned in the commit logs. > > > > I think the comments are useful for non-trivial cases. In these > > definitions, the inputs were propagated because they were mentioned in > > .pc files. Propagation because of pkg-config is trivial. So I removed > > the comments. > ┌──────────────────────────────┐ │ "So I removed the comments." │ └──────────────────────────────┘ Raghav, I think you may not grok the social signalling of a statement like that :) It sounds like you are overlooking the _social_ need for consensus in modifying a shared environment. Taking a picture off the wall of a shared living room is different from taking the same picture off the wall in your private room. A git commit in a jointly developed FLOSS project is modifying a shared living room. (But do what you like in your own git repo ;-) The social aspect is not about the technical merits of of your changes, it's about the difference between joint ownership and private ownership, and the differences in exercising owner rights. > In the context of writing Guix packages, propagating the necessary > inputs to support other packages finding the library via pkg-config is a > serious thing, not trivial. If it breaks, dependent packages will likely > change in behaviour or stop building entirely. > > As for the comments, personally, I think the reasons behind propagated > inputs are individual enough and important enough to each package that > it's useful to write them down, even if that comment is "these things > are referenced by the .pc file". That way others looking at the package > definition don't have to wonder or try and dig through the Git history > to find information about what's going on. > > Anyway, I think the most useful output from this discussion is amending > or adding to the packaging guilelines to cover this: > > https://guix.gnu.org/manual/en/html_node/Packaging-Guidelines.html -- Regards, Bengt Richter