From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Leo Famulari Subject: Re: We need an RFC procedure [Re: Services can now have a default value] Date: Mon, 22 May 2017 18:45:11 -0400 Message-ID: <20170522224511.GD11317@jasmine> References: <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> <20170427183749.2c8b817e@mykolab.ch> <87a86vig6d.fsf@gnu.org> <877f18bn78.fsf@elephly.net> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/signed; micalg=pgp-sha256; protocol="application/pgp-signature"; boundary="EP0wieDxd4TSJjHq" Return-path: Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([2001:4830:134:3::10]:60699) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1dCw4j-00063y-8u for guix-devel@gnu.org; Mon, 22 May 2017 18:45:18 -0400 Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1dCw4g-0002Oi-5h for guix-devel@gnu.org; Mon, 22 May 2017 18:45:17 -0400 Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <877f18bn78.fsf@elephly.net> List-Id: "Development of GNU Guix and the GNU System distribution." List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Errors-To: guix-devel-bounces+gcggd-guix-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Sender: "Guix-devel" To: Ricardo Wurmus Cc: guix-devel , Carlo Zancanaro --EP0wieDxd4TSJjHq Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: inline Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable On Mon, May 22, 2017 at 11:23:23PM +0200, Ricardo Wurmus wrote: > Ludovic Court=C3=A8s writes: > > What would be stable in the =E2=80=9Cstable branch=E2=80=9D, packages o= r Guix? :-) > > > > A branch where Guix itself is stable would be nice, though it would need > > careful merging from master regularly. >=20 > This would make sense. It would require some restraint in moving > packages to different modules or breaking some underlying package > features, which would cause ABI breakage. >=20 > I do think it would be possible, though. It's definitely possible, but I'd like to see it proposed in more detail by the group that will maintain it. It's not okay to start a "stable branch" unless it will be properly supported. >=20 > > A branch where packages are stable (=C3=A0 la Debian stable) would be t= oo > > much work (I=E2=80=99m even skeptical it makes any sense given that many > > declared and undeclared security vulnerabilities get patched everytime a > > piece of software is released=E2=80=A6). >=20 > Yeah, that wouldn=E2=80=99t make sense. It=E2=80=99s hard enough to deal= with security > issues in current software in a timely fashion. +1 Anyone who really needs this has a business use case that can support a private fork, in my opinion. --EP0wieDxd4TSJjHq Content-Type: application/pgp-signature; name="signature.asc" -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- iQIzBAABCAAdFiEEsFFZSPHn08G5gDigJkb6MLrKfwgFAlkjafcACgkQJkb6MLrK fwib/RAA4vfLAIQwJlzi9DObDGBNdKqCgEy2LqavKMc2Jl51wK1KJAn/q0Y3EIg/ RfgE7HKzSAfzFBUn+Gd93K/BGE/vsBqVR12NMZKp19U4iBosN9N39j8ZdkATm6EI mxce0Bz6vV7lSZ/79KI4VGNKZbijnaGLhWNhaXYd7eugnKbUMWoGhKdMVxYRAtj1 l4P0Z03XpxQQIlXtbZW3MyR3BQj5HKxN9LCu1SahBMIuPdIGJzijS8pwmHi1yXGh GCA5BpeQ3sumL4NR4aUXG5OAqexPV3HgVEsrYDgBZuV0p+F4Jl0AHkfTM2ImLi9h 9qMlEExkJOXQKuC1NGMhjDAnjYREiPIHj5u5kiUJyvHw8WsvVqpZTfRf/UXh2CZM ia6mpWx14uLf0jkQx4DFOAuHtXBDKSlZi0fLXfzY5XKc3QWjpDdfAova9rixogWO CdEcAkPBce669UV7ktTbMw86G9mP+1a6Il/vEG5m1BCpgih2Jm0Z2AiCL8IV3h1F zs4Gnrx2hb/5HzpAvQ2h5oCQH9JIEDO6nszMduZNSLI6FJ6XTRZxFugYDVTC0csj Z9qVmvJUwBerGe0OygHwKcVUUC/edMMnn5nLIxAYb85pHjNo8jPOdSgHg2b9qxI5 s36eqcBKWeOdDMVerv+vDCXAJ+VN8Gm8OH6siee/BSOoSeGtUQM= =F1Ao -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --EP0wieDxd4TSJjHq--