From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Ricardo Wurmus Subject: Re: =?utf-8?Q?What=E2=80=99s?= next? Date: Thu, 25 May 2017 22:01:16 +0200 Message-ID: <87k254vh83.fsf@elephly.net> References: <877f16z9eo.fsf@gnu.org> <874lwaql17.fsf@gnu.org> <20170524214539.GA26320@jasmine> <87y3tlt256.fsf@gmail.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Return-path: Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([2001:4830:134:3::10]:42529) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1dDywq-0001h8-A2 for guix-devel@gnu.org; Thu, 25 May 2017 16:01:29 -0400 Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1dDywn-0002N1-99 for guix-devel@gnu.org; Thu, 25 May 2017 16:01:28 -0400 Received: from sender-of-o51.zoho.com ([135.84.80.216]:21028) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtps (TLS1.0:RSA_AES_256_CBC_SHA1:32) (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1dDywn-0002Mx-1e for guix-devel@gnu.org; Thu, 25 May 2017 16:01:25 -0400 In-reply-to: <87y3tlt256.fsf@gmail.com> 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: Chris Marusich Cc: guix-devel Chris Marusich writes: > Leo Famulari writes: > >> So, I use and recommend `guix pull`! > > I use it too. Statements by others in this thread that "nobody" uses it > or that "everyone" is using Git are mistaken. > > I use Git when I want to hack on Guix. Otherwise, I use 'guix pull'. > IMO, the biggest problem with 'guix pull' is that there is no easy > rollback. I can live with long execution times (--fallback is fine, but > it'd be nice if substitutes were available more often), and I can live > with 'guix pull' causing me to get a version of guix that's broken > somehow, but the inability to easily roll back when things go south > makes me hesitant to run 'guix pull' regularly. I believe this can be fixed by adding more links to “.config/guix”, i.e. before creating “latest” it would create “2017-05-24:08:21:01.123” and then link from there to “latest”. On update it would create a new link “2017-05-25:17:45:45.123” and link that to latest. Roll back would be a matter of pointing “2017-05-24:08:21:01.123” to “latest”. (“latest” should be renamed to “current” to better match the intent in this case.) Timestamped names like this are ugly, but that’s what’s at the top of my head. -- Ricardo GPG: BCA6 89B6 3655 3801 C3C6 2150 197A 5888 235F ACAC https://elephly.net