Re: Ensuring we don't break user systems

[Nils Gillmann <ng0@n0.is>]

We just have 2 different views here.

When Guix started, which was about 3 years before I joined, the model
was okay. Between 2015 and now the amount of breakage has been
extremely reduced due to discussions about more reasonable development
models. For a while now we have an informal rfc for bigger changes -
this is a result from "please don't do that without asking first"
because some of us got upset about assuming that all changes are okay.

I sympathize with your point of view - in production even a couple of
breaking commits are bad.

We have grown over the last years, but developing reasonable deployment
models which fit our group takes time.

I'm okay with defining a branching model and use it once we have the
tooling and infrastructure for it.

Dan Partelly transcribed 2.4K bytes:
> No I did not shown or proofed this affirmation. I believe it is sensible.  It is a undeniable reality of software development  that bugs are introduced during development. Having the update to the package manager (which in GuixSD is very central to the distro itself) 
> result in a broken system "even if you can roll back” is a very bad thing. It is my opinion that the current model is both technically bad (exposing users to broken software , security bugs and so on) and socially bad ( having the package manager crap on itself due to bugs introduced in the development cycle may prompt a lot of people to look in to an alternative and creates bad publicity. It also results in end users wasting time, and time is the most precious comodity we have. I do not want the OS I use to waste my time. I want to install the software I need and work with and go on with my life and work  ). Ironically, the problem is easily solved . DO not expose people to your devel branch where they will get first contact wiith guix bugs and guile bugs. The situation with GuixSD is somehow complicated by the fact that the package metadata is compiled as code, but yeah, a stable branch which is proven to be compilable and preferably regression tested is the first step IMO towards a better future with GuixSD. Treat is as a product which offers a rock solid platform for the users.
> 
> And yes, in between 0.14 / 0.15 GuixSD was broken by guix pull a  lot. That is a fact, unfortunately. 
> > Dan Partelly <dan_partelly@rdsor.ro> writes:
> > 
> >> I pointed this out 4-5 weeks ago when trying GuixSD, on this very list. Thanks for reaffirming  the idea In all honesty the current model is very badly broken, and you should not wait for 1.0. I had no other Linux distro break up faster than GuixSD. A stable branch is not enough by itself,  (but is the mort important part) you need to ensure that all substitutes are built correctly, and atomically update all substitutes following a successful build of all packages.
> >> 
> >> You should not inflict  current model on your users , not  even for an 0.1
> > 
> > While this might apply to some software. I don't believe, and I don't
> > think you've shown that this reasoning is appropriate or useful to apply
> > to Guix.
> > 
> > Saying that something doesn't work for you is fine, and can be helpful,
> > but such a unevidenced extreme view is unhelpful.
> 
>