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 ms0.migadu.com with LMTPS id PAqHC2nleWEOVgEAgWs5BA (envelope-from ) for ; Thu, 28 Oct 2021 01:48:57 +0200 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 eGaYBmnleWEWZwAAbx9fmQ (envelope-from ) for ; Wed, 27 Oct 2021 23:48:57 +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 D50C4ACB3 for ; Thu, 28 Oct 2021 01:48:56 +0200 (CEST) Received: from localhost ([::1]:55686 helo=lists1p.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1mfsf9-0006Il-IY for larch@yhetil.org; Wed, 27 Oct 2021 19:48:55 -0400 Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([2001:470:142:3::10]:34544) by lists.gnu.org with esmtps (TLS1.2:ECDHE_RSA_AES_256_GCM_SHA384:256) (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1mfseS-0006IO-6z for guix-devel@gnu.org; Wed, 27 Oct 2021 19:48:13 -0400 Received: from mx1.dismail.de ([78.46.223.134]:37512) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtps (TLS1.2:ECDHE_RSA_AES_256_GCM_SHA384:256) (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1mfseO-0008ON-F9; Wed, 27 Oct 2021 19:48:11 -0400 Received: from mx1.dismail.de (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mx1.dismail.de (OpenSMTPD) with ESMTP id 14508faa; Thu, 28 Oct 2021 01:48:01 +0200 (CEST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed; d=dismail.de; h= mime-version:date:content-type:content-transfer-encoding:from :message-id:subject:to:in-reply-to:references; s=20190914; bh=9N fSg2mmaWQzs6pwVg3vwQTb3zYB+rX0fyjAKj9JU5Y=; b=P4XLBIlJhO/9p7r2Wr JQ3/gTO6xpUplp6S8+sluMBG+7ciLb3wI/riUtNK5esxZqmyeLzllIegYzodzAep KiKMnNrIMs9E+zU45C4Tnda6Wkc/X8Vk9aXMeNCnkLHst42+kIYJ6SZg+XN6juXm Z1AhUXnKpfkKUPXrpfbpPQsqFmMNdksNv0aTEKvSk+BqHPs4iOTR4PDE3lX2t9HW cxbJ4CAR+vA+m7cnn96Ecl+TGvqgFeBERVW26suLNOamV3Dp8ytTQkA3hLhjn/RQ szG8c0z6Kly3bLAyJ0vhiW4VAaAnsEVTqOWE2Y+ARmOVyLptIzWSjDeXGwlr99SA zCOg== Received: from smtp2.dismail.de ( [10.240.26.12]) by mx1.dismail.de (OpenSMTPD) with ESMTP id a6740898; Thu, 28 Oct 2021 01:48:01 +0200 (CEST) Received: from smtp2.dismail.de (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by smtp2.dismail.de (OpenSMTPD) with ESMTP id d6dde0a5; Thu, 28 Oct 2021 01:48:01 +0200 (CEST) Received: by dismail.de (OpenSMTPD) with ESMTPSA id 9b5699e7 (TLSv1.2:ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384:256:NO); Thu, 28 Oct 2021 01:48:00 +0200 (CEST) MIME-Version: 1.0 Date: Wed, 27 Oct 2021 23:47:59 +0000 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable X-Mailer: RainLoop/1.14.0a From: jbranso@dismail.de Message-ID: Subject: Re: Time for a request-for-comments process? To: "=?utf-8?B?THVkb3ZpYyBDb3VydMOocw==?=" , "Guix Devel" In-Reply-To: <87cznqb1sl.fsf@inria.fr> References: <87cznqb1sl.fsf@inria.fr> Received-SPF: pass client-ip=78.46.223.134; envelope-from=jbranso@dismail.de; helo=mx1.dismail.de X-Spam_score_int: -27 X-Spam_score: -2.8 X-Spam_bar: -- X-Spam_report: (-2.8 / 5.0 requ) BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_EF=-0.1, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-0.7, 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: , 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=1635378536; 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: in-reply-to:in-reply-to:references:references:list-id:list-help: list-unsubscribe:list-subscribe:list-post:dkim-signature; bh=G/TMLwXfCfY160LZwd26ik+CkwSebS3UzUkq4lswvjc=; b=YeSOXqnI0NKx6RwyD7EyVhJsTbMqB8QSwWXUdEnXpYnhPyuCYYcW8xNIqx6gAWdYAL5MA3 C8ZW08iePi2fOohTo2AcijYxBZqrfZyoi0qbP/nd3z2JiLG6890G1FXkiNxOsZtmG8sHyJ DmVr0TaQtVheP5W2frD+an4wGjQ14/y/s+NPCtl9npe76j8NdP4MF3sQYDctNPiGdtTsUB 855Mvz0s04GsVVAW0dNWOmYYT8wMI7OL/I0oPY+RtKrSpoHuJvo6tPHp/QYKo29288DOB9 W1ifYwXuynvhMbd3/gQtR/3nc9INLYR0aKByo3Gb/dhHWkceHX7MjkDuKtzuSg== ARC-Seal: i=1; s=key1; d=yhetil.org; t=1635378536; a=rsa-sha256; cv=none; b=d6hUIOXxIUvCAklTQHg/MqsBwmdSjJqjPg1WA1psOegs1/yYuui79hB+FjsQrbv1h2QaDL uD7A8VI4myCm2n8Fpdr2VXe4frMl8ED1tXvK1/v2aw9MfW/1+rl+AY/Mx6Ran9MG6zNgrR xxJUoRkYPBGtTWYHWRwsFKx3KA3sty2w6iM+GnMGmZXPECmNxx6iIl2XH/4SZBP5tlLW/m LBxiBQkpMZ8h1rRqI12mbDNsAUaxxGPyUS6olk+H79J4g7+h5ejbRxKsygwnTyKuFrQ+RM WBvmyEwLyYc3/SDHlveep/CRZdB0o/9fVH0axZqjXhWxFeVw9ahmFZE0Mai1cA== ARC-Authentication-Results: i=1; aspmx1.migadu.com; dkim=pass header.d=dismail.de header.s=20190914 header.b=P4XLBIlJ; dmarc=pass (policy=reject) header.from=dismail.de; 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=dismail.de header.s=20190914 header.b=P4XLBIlJ; dmarc=pass (policy=reject) header.from=dismail.de; 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: D50C4ACB3 X-Spam-Score: -2.12 X-Migadu-Scanner: scn0.migadu.com X-TUID: kZgtdRtwTSxb October 27, 2021 5:23 PM, "Ludovic Court=C3=A8s" wrote:=0A= =0A> Hello Guix!=0A> =0A> The recent =E2=80=98guix shell=E2=80=99 additio= n is almost anecdotal technically yet=0A> important for the project becau= se users interact with Guix primarily=0A> through the CLI. Adding a new c= ommand is a commitment (our users must=0A> trust it won=E2=80=99t change = overnight), and getting the details wrong could=0A> make us fail to honor= that commitment.=0A> =0A> For =E2=80=98guix shell=E2=80=99 I left time f= or comments and repeatedly asked people to=0A> comment; yet pushing it wa= s a bit stressful: Did I make a mistake? Did=0A> everyone with a stake in= this really have a chance to comment?=0A=0AI absolutely love the new gui= x shell! "-ad-hoc" was a bit confusing to=0Aunderstand. I know more abou= t guix shell in 5 minutes than I did with=0Aa few years of guix environme= nt! =0A=0A> That makes me think it=E2=80=99s perhaps time for a formaliz= ed=0A> request-for-comments (RFC) kind of process for such =E2=80=9Cmajor= changes=E2=80=9D. We=0A> could draw inspiration from one of the many exi= sting processes: Python=E2=80=99s=0A> PEPs, Scheme=E2=80=99s SRFIs, Nix= =E2=80=99s RFCs, Rust=E2=80=99s MCPs, etc. I think a major=0A> goal of th= e process would be to formalize a minimum and a maximum=0A> duration unde= r which an RFC is under evaluation, and a mechanism to=0A> determine whet= her it=E2=80=99s accepted or withdrawn.=0A=0AI'm all for a RFC! Somehow = I missed any communication about this new=0Aguix shell, and I normally fo= llow the mailing lists like a 11th grade=0Astalker (not that I have any e= xperience with stalking...I can't really=0Adiscuss it until the lawsuit i= s over...).=0A=0ABut then again my comments are perhaps not as weighty as= others? I have=0Aonly really been the occasional guix documentation wri= ter. =0A=0A> Thoughts? Anyone with experience with such a process?=0A> = =0A> Ludo=E2=80=99.