Re: [PATCH] doc: Update contribution guidelines on patches, etc.

[Maxime Devos <maximedevos@telenet.be>]

[-- Attachment #1.1.1.1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1514 bytes --]


On 09-08-2022 21:08, Liliana Marie Prikler wrote:
>> To be clear, do you mean you:
>>   * think it's not better, maybe even worse
>>   * think it's not_much_  better (but still_slightly_  better)
>>   * are undecided
>>   * or something else
>> ?
>> Also, "guix build -S" returns the source code (after snippet / patch,
>> if any), not its derivation. For the latter: "guix build -S -d"
> FWIW I don't think mentioning patch-and-repack is too helpful here
> either.  Also, I'd like to use consistent wording at least within this
> section, so here "source" means "upstream source" whereas "source
> derivation" is a shorthand for the stuff Guix builds.  Yes, the
> derivation is not the same thing as the output, but I again fail to see
> how being overly precise is helpful.  That being said, I'm open to
> suggestions.
>
I am not reading an answer to my question.

I don't think I've mentioned patch-and-repack (at least not by name, 
which you seem to be referring to?).

I would not recommend "source = upstream source", as the more general 
meaning is used in (guix)Introduction and 
<https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/free-sw.html> and elsewhere, otherwise 
terminology would become inconsistent, which can lead to misinterpretations.

I don't think there's such a thing as 'overly precise'.

My suggestion is the same as your suggestion:

> You could s/source derivation/the result of
> @code{guix build -S}/, but I don't think that's much better.
Greetings,
Maxime.


[-- Attachment #1.1.1.2: Type: text/html, Size: 2514 bytes --]

[-- Attachment #1.1.2: OpenPGP public key --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-keys, Size: 929 bytes --]

[-- Attachment #2: OpenPGP digital signature --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 236 bytes --]