Hi Ricardo,

Ricardo Wurmus <rekado@elephly.net> writes:

> The remote’s Guix is pretty old, so it’s likely that Ludo is right.
> So, I actually reconfigured these machines semi-successfully, eh?
> Neat!

Yeah! Neat for me, too. I find it mind-blowing that this tool I made is
already seeing some use

> “false-if-exception” isn’t great because it swallows the errors. I’d
> still very much like to see the errors – I just don’t want to see a
> backtrace is all.

I agree that we should maintain some level of error reporting, which
inspired my suggestion to warn on services that couldn't be started. But
you're right that we should be catching the exceptions to achieve that
rather than using 'false-if-exception'.

> Similarly, it would be great if “guix deploy” would continue deploying
> other machines in the list even if one of them couldn’t be deployed
> due to an error. I have a list of 24 machines and a few of them fail
> with the user-homes error above. Would be nice if all the other
> deployments would still go through, because they are independent.
>
> (On the other hand, the current behaviour might be desirable in case
> there’s a problem with “guix deploy” itself. Rather break just one
> machine instead of wrecking the whole site. Dunno.)

Well, we can pick and choose which exceptions we continue on. For
services not being started, we can probably carry on with the
deployment. I think, ideally, in the situations where 'guix deploy'
should stop, we should try to clean up a bit? Though I'm not yet sure
how we'd go about that aside from rolling back the system generation.

Regards,
Jakob