From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
From: Petter <petter@mykolab.ch>
Subject: Re: We need an RFC procedure [Re: Services can now have a default
	value]
Date: Thu, 27 Apr 2017 18:37:49 +0200
Message-ID: <20170427183749.2c8b817e@mykolab.ch>
References: <87shl9qo7h.fsf@gnu.org> <877f2go3wn.fsf@zancanaro.id.au>
	<877f2gksbs.fsf@gnu.org> <8737d32abz.fsf@zancanaro.id.au>
	<87bmrr4ghh.fsf@gnu.org> <874lxjnzyx.fsf@zancanaro.id.au>
	<87bmrp8lk6.fsf@gnu.org> <8737d1nxbd.fsf@zancanaro.id.au>
	<20170422004634.4oedqmsebpctjqk4@abyayala>
	<878tmsud8m.fsf@elephly.net>
	<20170422100811.mr3t5rgh6n44xvdk@abyayala> <87pog4gihe.fsf@gnu.org>
	<87wpabsa71.fsf@elephly.net> <87bmri7zce.fsf@gnu.org>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Return-path: <guix-devel-bounces+gcggd-guix-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org>
Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([2001:4830:134:3::10]:54470)
	by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71)
	(envelope-from <petter@mykolab.ch>) id 1d3mQf-00062B-9S
	for guix-devel@gnu.org; Thu, 27 Apr 2017 12:38:09 -0400
Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71)
	(envelope-from <petter@mykolab.ch>) id 1d3mQb-0004tC-3t
	for guix-devel@gnu.org; Thu, 27 Apr 2017 12:38:05 -0400
In-Reply-To: <87bmri7zce.fsf@gnu.org>
List-Id: "Development of GNU Guix and the GNU System distribution."
	<guix-devel.gnu.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/options/guix-devel>,
	<mailto:guix-devel-request@gnu.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://lists.gnu.org/archive/html/guix-devel/>
List-Post: <mailto:guix-devel@gnu.org>
List-Help: <mailto:guix-devel-request@gnu.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/guix-devel>,
	<mailto:guix-devel-request@gnu.org?subject=subscribe>
Errors-To: guix-devel-bounces+gcggd-guix-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org
Sender: "Guix-devel" <guix-devel-bounces+gcggd-guix-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org>
To: Ludovic =?UTF-8?B?Q291cnTDqHM=?= <ludo@gnu.org>
Cc: guix-devel <guix-devel@gnu.org>, Carlo Zancanaro <carlo@zancanaro.id.au>

If I may make a suggestion, coming from a place of ignorance.

How about a stable branch that would be opt-in?

On Thu, 27 Apr 2017 15:29:53 +0200
ludo@gnu.org (Ludovic Court=C3=A8s) wrote:

> Ricardo Wurmus <rekado@elephly.net> skribis:
>=20
> > It=E2=80=99s a little unfortunate that packages are developed together =
with
> > everything else, because this means that there is no way for people to
> > opt out of breaking changes until the next release without also opting
> > out of getting any updates at all. =20
>=20
> It=E2=80=99s both a strength and a weakness I guess.  The good thing is t=
hat we
> can make changes that affect everything at once.  The bad thing is what
> you mention.
>=20
> We could use feature branches more, with the downside that they would
> probably get little additional testing, precisely because one would have
> to choose between features and packages.
>=20
> Thoughts?
>=20
> Ludo=E2=80=99.
>=20