On 2024-06-02 13:37, Efraim Flashner wrote: > On Sun, Jun 02, 2024 at 12:15:14PM +0200, Ludovic Courtès wrote: >> Hi Andrew, >> >> Andrew Tropin 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 ). >> >> For these reasons, I’m in favor of reverting this change. >> >> What do others think? > > This patch also added home-environment? without adding an import of > (gnu home). > > It's unfortunate that the wording for the manual says 'pair' when it's a > list, but IMO that's more of a typo in the manual than a mistake in the > code. > > With a quick look I didn't see in any of my OS configs configurations > with pair notations, even with simple-service or extra-special-file, > where it would have been most likely. > > I think it would be best to roll this back. ok, reverted. > >> Aside, it’s unfortunate that you weren’t around to review this patch >> initially, despite being one of the recipients: >> . I think it’s important to not give >> the impression that you chime in just when an rde incompatibility comes >> up. >> >> Thanks, >> Ludo’. >> >> ¹ https://issues.guix.gnu.org/71111#8 >> >> >> -- Best regards, Andrew Tropin