On 2024-06-02 12:15, Ludovic Courtès wrote:

> Hi Andrew,
>
> Andrew Tropin <andrew@trop.in> skribis:
>
>> On 2024-05-22 14:02, Andrew Tropin via Guix-patches via wrote:
>>
>>> After rewriting from car/cdr to match-lambda in v2 of this patch:
>>> https://yhetil.org/guix-patches/3394b0b51f6a5a608ebcfb7a63fdc34e52fe928e.1711046203.git.richard@freakingpenguin.com/
>>>
>>> the format changed from pairs to lists, I didn't noticed this nuance
>>> during review because the documentation still says that service should
>>> be configured and extended with pairs.  Also, pairs are more
>>> apropriate data type here.  And this match-lambda rewrite will break
>>> downstream RDE user's setups after migrating to upstreamed version of
>>> service.
>>>
>>> That's why I propose to go back to pairs.
>>>
>>> Andrew Tropin (1):
>>>   services: home: Use pairs instead of lists.
>>>
>>>  doc/guix.texi         | 4 ++--
>>>  gnu/services/guix.scm | 2 +-
>>>  gnu/tests/guix.scm    | 2 +-
>>>  3 files changed, 4 insertions(+), 4 deletions(-)
>>>
>>>
>>> base-commit: b06a460bf5236a9d52f936f2023451051b3e622a
>>
>> Merged v2 with updated API and additional type checks.
>
> Perhaps I wasn’t clear enough when asking for clarifications¹, but I
> think this change shouldn’t happen: first because it’s an incompatible
> change that will break user configs, and second because it’s
> inconsistent with other similar interfaces (such as ‘authorized-keys’
> and <openssh-configuration>).
>
> For these reasons, I’m in favor of reverting this change.
>
> What do others think?
>
> Aside, it’s unfortunate that you weren’t around to review this patch
> initially, despite being one of the recipients:
> <https://issues.guix.gnu.org/69781>.

We discussed the upstreaming of this service with Richard and I was
following the thread above, so I was around.  I didn't merge or comment
on it because it is literally code written by me, so it make sense to
let someone else to review and merge it.

I didn't realise that in the second revision API was changed from pairs
to lists, when destructuring was rewritten from car/cdr to match.  I
skimmed through the docs and was satisfyed and didn't wrote anything.
It came up only now, when people started reporting problems.

>  I think it’s important to not give the impression that you chime in
> just when an rde incompatibility comes up.

Not sure what you mean.

-- 
Best regards,
Andrew Tropin