From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([2001:4830:134:3::10]:38188)
	by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71)
	(envelope-from <Debian-debbugs@debbugs.gnu.org>) id 1ea0Zx-0001dU-4m
	for guix-patches@gnu.org; Fri, 12 Jan 2018 09:45:10 -0500
Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71)
	(envelope-from <Debian-debbugs@debbugs.gnu.org>) id 1ea0Zr-0007fw-AQ
	for guix-patches@gnu.org; Fri, 12 Jan 2018 09:45:09 -0500
Received: from debbugs.gnu.org ([208.118.235.43]:45146)
	by eggs.gnu.org with esmtps (TLS1.0:RSA_AES_128_CBC_SHA1:16)
	(Exim 4.71) (envelope-from <Debian-debbugs@debbugs.gnu.org>)
	id 1ea0Zr-0007fc-6l
	for guix-patches@gnu.org; Fri, 12 Jan 2018 09:45:03 -0500
Received: from Debian-debbugs by debbugs.gnu.org with local (Exim 4.84_2)
	(envelope-from <Debian-debbugs@debbugs.gnu.org>) id 1ea0Zq-0007xA-T2
	for guix-patches@gnu.org; Fri, 12 Jan 2018 09:45:02 -0500
Subject: [bug#29932] [PATCH v2 2/2] system: Rename
	operating-system-user-kernel-arguments to
	operating-system-kernel-arguments.
Resent-Message-ID: <handler.29932.B29932.151576824530490@debbugs.gnu.org>
Date: Fri, 12 Jan 2018 15:43:56 +0100
From: Danny Milosavljevic <dannym@scratchpost.org>
Message-ID: <20180112154356.3fbd9177@scratchpost.org>
In-Reply-To: <87o9lzqih9.fsf@gnu.org>
References: <20180112105953.7198-1-dannym@scratchpost.org>
	<20180112110147.7305-1-dannym@scratchpost.org>
	<87o9lzqih9.fsf@gnu.org>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
List-Id: <guix-patches.gnu.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/options/guix-patches>,
	<mailto:guix-patches-request@gnu.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://lists.gnu.org/archive/html/guix-patches/>
List-Post: <mailto:guix-patches@gnu.org>
List-Help: <mailto:guix-patches-request@gnu.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/guix-patches>,
	<mailto:guix-patches-request@gnu.org?subject=subscribe>
Errors-To: guix-patches-bounces+kyle=kyleam.com@gnu.org
Sender: "Guix-patches" <guix-patches-bounces+kyle=kyleam.com@gnu.org>
To: Ludovic =?UTF-8?Q?Court=C3=A8s?= <ludo@gnu.org>
Cc: 29932@debbugs.gnu.org

Hi Ludo,

> I=E2=80=99m a bit lost: in my tree I don=E2=80=99t have
> =E2=80=98operating-system-boot-kernel-arguments=E2=80=99.  Is it still pe=
nding?

It's added by PATCH v2 1/2 from the series.  Didn't the second mail get thr=
ough?

> Otherwise my only question is whether it=E2=80=99s a good idea to move aw=
ay from
> the =E2=80=98user-=E2=80=99 convention.  On one hand, it=E2=80=99s the co=
nvention we also have
> for services (=E2=80=98-user-services=E2=80=99 vs. =E2=80=98-services=E2=
=80=99), so it would be a good
> thing to remain consistent.  OTOH, what you propose is maybe clearer.
>=20
> Thoughts?

Yeah, I've split it into two patches because I actually got used to operati=
ng-system-user-kernel-arguments by now (only a few days in).  We could only=
 apply PATCH v2 1/2 and not apply PATCH v2 2/2 if we wanted.

In the end it comes down to whether we deem the existence operating-system-=
boot-kernel-arguments an implementation detail or not (whether the user wou=
ld ever need to be aware of operating-system-boot-kernel-arguments).  We ha=
ve to export operating-system-boot-kernel-arguments because one thing in gn=
u/system/vm.scm needs it - otherwise it would be very much an implementatio=
n detail.

Let's see what the others say.