From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
From: Ricardo Wurmus <rekado@elephly.net>
Subject: Re: Merging =?utf-8?B?4oCYSEFDS0lOR+KAmQ==?= in the manual?
Date: Mon, 01 Jun 2015 21:58:10 +0200
Message-ID: <877frn9p65.fsf@elephly.net>
References: <87k2w1tq0y.fsf@163.com> <87h9r438er.fsf@earlgrey.lan>
	<87egm8h8w7.fsf@gnu.org> <87egm83019.fsf@earlgrey.lan>
	<87zj4ve6nm.fsf@gnu.org> <878ucf2ma7.fsf@earlgrey.lan>
	<87oal5dcmq.fsf@gnu.org> <87y4k921s2.fsf@openmailbox.org>
	<87a8wnayml.fsf@gnu.org> <878uc6p3wu.fsf@openmailbox.org>
	<87k2vo4kqm.fsf_-_@gnu.org>
	<7eb17310dde212e7cbc911e38178e9db@openmailbox.org>
	<87fv6bi5os.fsf@gnu.org>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Return-path: <guix-devel-bounces+gcggd-guix-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org>
Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([2001:4830:134:3::10]:59563)
	by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71)
	(envelope-from <rekado@elephly.net>) id 1YzVqt-0001FY-Mm
	for guix-devel@gnu.org; Mon, 01 Jun 2015 15:58:32 -0400
Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71)
	(envelope-from <rekado@elephly.net>) id 1YzVqo-0003LR-9P
	for guix-devel@gnu.org; Mon, 01 Jun 2015 15:58:27 -0400
In-reply-to: <87fv6bi5os.fsf@gnu.org>
List-Id: "Development of GNU Guix and the GNU System distribution."
	<guix-devel.gnu.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/options/guix-devel>,
	<mailto:guix-devel-request@gnu.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://lists.gnu.org/archive/html/guix-devel>
List-Post: <mailto:guix-devel@gnu.org>
List-Help: <mailto:guix-devel-request@gnu.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/guix-devel>,
	<mailto:guix-devel-request@gnu.org?subject=subscribe>
Errors-To: guix-devel-bounces+gcggd-guix-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org
Sender: guix-devel-bounces+gcggd-guix-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org
To: Ludovic =?utf-8?Q?Court=C3=A8s?= <ludo@gnu.org>
Cc: guix <guix-devel@gnu.org>, Feng Shu <tumashu@163.com>

> We should aim to blur the distinction between developers and users, and
> I think we have the right technical environment for that
> (“configuration” files that happen to actually be Scheme, “package
> recipes” that happen to be Scheme as well, etc.)  So I’m in favor of
> keeping the technical information all grouped together.

I agree.  Keeping it all together also encourages users to make use of
their software freedom to modify recipes, add their own and possibly
submit them upstream.

>> I don't have a strong opinion.  It might be a separate “Hacking” (or
>> whatever) section in the current manual or another “maint” info manual.
>> Both solutions look good to me.  I have a slight preference for the
>> first variant though.
>
> Yes, that’s also my current inclination.

I, too, would prefer to have it as a section in the current manual, but
that's primarily because I never remember where I can find the
information I'm looking for.  It's easier to have it in the same manual,
organised in an order that goes from casual user to contributor.

~~ Ricardo