Re: Planet of Guix-related posts?

[Matt <matt@excalamus.com>]

 ---- On Mon, 10 Jan 2022 10:21:51 -0500 zimoun <zimon.toutoune@gmail.com> wrote ----

 > (On a side note between parenthesis, we should avoid to fall into the
 > "Package Definition" tutorial fallacy; as explained here for monads
 > https://byorgey.wordpress.com/2009/01/12/abstraction-intuition-and-the-monad-tutorial-fallacy/.
 > And I wrote one post about monad and another about Packaging. ;-)
 > However, I think the official documentation has enough materials for
 > starting to package. End of parenthesis.)

If many people feel inclined to write their own packaging tutorial, it's probably an indication that the manual isn't sufficient.  I would urge you and others to not fall into the "don't touch it because it's good enough for me fallacy".  Others may, and probably do, see things differently.  

This is where I should say precisely what I think is unclear. Only that way can we find what the source of confusion is and maybe address it in the documentation.  I can't do that now, but the documentation meeting might be a good place for that.

 > Last, we have to distinguish between "temporary" content and
 > well-maintained documentation.  We discussed many times the Cookbook
 > and I think what we are trying with a limited success that this
 > document fits too much goals at the same time.  For instance, if I
 > would have to send a patch for fixing Wikipedia typo or adding a quick
 > paragraph about preconditioner of linear system, I would never just do
 > one or the other.  The Cookbook is currently too rigid for quick
 > half-backed recipes.

This is a good observation. What problem is the cookbook trying to solve? Once that's clear, we can make judgements about whether it accomplishes that goal.