From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from mp1 ([2001:41d0:2:bcc0::]) (using TLSv1.3 with cipher TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 (256/256 bits)) by ms0.migadu.com with LMTPS id wO+8KUTDeWEQAQEAgWs5BA (envelope-from ) for ; Wed, 27 Oct 2021 23:23:16 +0200 Received: from aspmx1.migadu.com ([2001:41d0:2:bcc0::]) (using TLSv1.3 with cipher TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 (256/256 bits)) by mp1 with LMTPS id CM1GJUTDeWFIBgAAbx9fmQ (envelope-from ) for ; Wed, 27 Oct 2021 21:23:16 +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 00E37F892 for ; Wed, 27 Oct 2021 23:23:16 +0200 (CEST) Received: from localhost ([::1]:52700 helo=lists1p.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1mfqOB-0007Kb-3R for larch@yhetil.org; Wed, 27 Oct 2021 17:23:15 -0400 Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([2001:470:142:3::10]:35258) by lists.gnu.org with esmtps (TLS1.2:ECDHE_RSA_AES_256_GCM_SHA384:256) (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1mfqNq-0007JS-36 for guix-devel@gnu.org; Wed, 27 Oct 2021 17:22:54 -0400 Received: from fencepost.gnu.org ([2001:470:142:3::e]:54650) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtps (TLS1.2:ECDHE_RSA_AES_256_GCM_SHA384:256) (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1mfqNp-0004Zo-QS for guix-devel@gnu.org; Wed, 27 Oct 2021 17:22:53 -0400 DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; q=dns/txt; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gnu.org; s=fencepost-gnu-org; h=MIME-Version:Date:Subject:To:From:in-reply-to: references; bh=y7nUBpxCzTNEGtt1mpX74Y1bBAhr999E4wqzHsss3II=; b=RrI/aao/KdvUeX 5nPOGrts9gJFSBOMyCRCOj6gP3WP4UVpTMSfG64H6sNc0Bxja5RgKzGaAy5NgmfY6b5XaUV7s4xav PKIXWmAFQF2Rahe2clcgxOhaYbuMT8rE2837p+Cp1p7FBqB2b5xfX+WMQnNrWdnWq5A3DEjFtsi+V 0l0gFkUMcRZ0eTIBYCjoWYrFS6fKzEHqwb6F4KYO9LxOy9qfQGSvwgBupZKCk6FlsoZ9+z+zL0pf0 MNGEEUUKGFQPULj3v5vI8ymRNqc0em1z8VwU16Udso7w8BvxjxXq4sZpikzAye73CBrqKx0j9O6Wp X0EpZX2RSkOvG+ig8ysA==; Received: from 91-160-117-201.subs.proxad.net ([91.160.117.201]:54252 helo=ribbon) by fencepost.gnu.org with esmtpsa (TLS1.2:ECDHE_RSA_AES_256_GCM_SHA384:256) (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1mfqNp-0000cO-DS for guix-devel@gnu.org; Wed, 27 Oct 2021 17:22:53 -0400 From: =?utf-8?Q?Ludovic_Court=C3=A8s?= To: Guix Devel Subject: Time for a request-for-comments process? X-URL: http://www.fdn.fr/~lcourtes/ X-Revolutionary-Date: 6 Brumaire an 230 de la =?utf-8?Q?R=C3=A9volution?= X-PGP-Key-ID: 0x090B11993D9AEBB5 X-PGP-Key: http://www.fdn.fr/~lcourtes/ludovic.asc X-PGP-Fingerprint: 3CE4 6455 8A84 FDC6 9DB4 0CFB 090B 1199 3D9A EBB5 X-OS: x86_64-pc-linux-gnu Date: Wed, 27 Oct 2021 23:22:50 +0200 Message-ID: <87cznqb1sl.fsf@inria.fr> User-Agent: Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13) Emacs/27.2 (gnu/linux) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable 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: , Errors-To: guix-devel-bounces+larch=yhetil.org@gnu.org Sender: "Guix-devel" X-Migadu-Flow: FLOW_IN ARC-Message-Signature: i=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=yhetil.org; s=key1; t=1635369796; h=from:from:sender:sender:reply-to:subject:subject:date:date: message-id:message-id:to:to:cc:mime-version:mime-version: content-type:content-type: content-transfer-encoding:content-transfer-encoding:list-id:list-help: list-unsubscribe:list-subscribe:list-post:dkim-signature; bh=y7nUBpxCzTNEGtt1mpX74Y1bBAhr999E4wqzHsss3II=; b=KDgOn5UjXd9qRh8LFbneaOZYdRvN7shnQcbmym255sgf/b8XP9cvgyNSjXe/WzPFWebkN3 KbttnDDp1GycceXCmFN1WF9zu6qUm4odVGbPI2IIQEWbO8VUiowYSItyLXBEUEXVmgYhGr xGWQsJKNkI/oAoHM5l/gzclJs/HphH8hrVx/XMkYiq8IswKh/7WzdD6mKbx4leJbBRt4Ij /KvY7B6Bv/B2tbKcHulfDdwhfmLt9tB/kZ904c9JsLnc9TtefdqCLUKqa1ybgXt9g2jKTQ Xs5Vf5Ikc8OzN1jzxkknmvjU3vNe5uBZ4ZO3y7wLBzKB8ze22dqxmh/0fe2DZw== ARC-Seal: i=1; s=key1; d=yhetil.org; t=1635369796; a=rsa-sha256; cv=none; b=PYwuD0ZTWUHIxGEWqKQDW1zGFa/HKn6dQ0DZyzwEcnVI3JCky9tD20EcXx4/LzFu/C2TPm uKq/6q6dvsOnW7pmH6EHxTzSpLqX/ug6/UsIT+YQd8PhUidbed795+tHV4b1GI+LEX2uPq OdMMzJogib16y76+ixyliYn062+hg/YNIcTQ+0ew6j1r6T6642kLW5BsHky2REFCRQR7Qx 41cXg4Pf5ElEi58PCCVJkLJLBoX8GOlCh5AOtXuZtzdXzaiAzR5t0uAYeDkTChOcaXpu87 IdwChE1DRQIRaQLgiV6yp7P9mjT92tg6wuq0krmUxDMi+atfz08/iz+aqKOhRg== ARC-Authentication-Results: i=1; aspmx1.migadu.com; dkim=pass header.d=gnu.org header.s=fencepost-gnu-org header.b="RrI/aao/"; dmarc=pass (policy=none) header.from=gnu.org; 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-Spam-Score: -2.12 Authentication-Results: aspmx1.migadu.com; dkim=pass header.d=gnu.org header.s=fencepost-gnu-org header.b="RrI/aao/"; dmarc=pass (policy=none) header.from=gnu.org; 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: 00E37F892 X-Spam-Score: -2.12 X-Migadu-Scanner: scn0.migadu.com X-TUID: bAg8+WXyno6L Hello Guix! The recent =E2=80=98guix shell=E2=80=99 addition is almost anecdotal techni= cally yet important for the project because users interact with Guix primarily through the CLI. Adding a new command is a commitment (our users must trust it won=E2=80=99t change overnight), and getting the details wrong cou= ld make us fail to honor that commitment. For =E2=80=98guix shell=E2=80=99 I left time for comments and repeatedly as= ked people to comment; yet pushing it was a bit stressful: Did I make a mistake? Did everyone with a stake in this really have a chance to comment? That makes me think it=E2=80=99s perhaps time for a formalized request-for-comments (RFC) kind of process for such =E2=80=9Cmajor changes= =E2=80=9D. We could draw inspiration from one of the many existing processes: Python=E2= =80=99s PEPs, Scheme=E2=80=99s SRFIs, Nix=E2=80=99s RFCs, Rust=E2=80=99s MCPs, etc.= I think a major goal of the process would be to formalize a minimum and a maximum duration under which an RFC is under evaluation, and a mechanism to determine whether it=E2=80=99s accepted or withdrawn. Thoughts? Anyone with experience with such a process? Ludo=E2=80=99.