Re: potluck status

[Katherine Cox-Buday <cox.katherine.e@gmail.com>]

Andy Wingo <wingo@igalia.com> writes:

> I guess you would probably also want to to specify also a set of
> active channels for a given guix command; e.g. "guix package
> --channels=testing --install my-package".

Being able to work with packages at the level of granularity of channels
would be ah-mazing. So many possibilities there.

> As for Scala and sbt and everything -- I think potluck packages are most
> appropriate for "leaf" packages.  For packages that form
> "infrastructure" like sbt and all, I think you will probably want to
> integrate more closely in Guix.  But I don't know.

I agree! I brought up potluck because for Java-type things (scala and
sbt included) it is often very unclear how to tie it back to a
reproducible build (see Hartmut Goebel's herculean efforts with maven).
The idea that potluck makes it easy to get going and then provides an
easy way to share your in-progress work seemed to fit nicely.

> & as for dev/testing/prod/etc -- I have no idea :)  I'm not really an
> ops person, so I can only speculate, and anyone can do that as well as I
> can :)  I think with guix-potluck.org my main focus is to let people
> share work-in-progress Guix packages immediately.  I can imagine many
> ways this could relate to a sort of devopsy workflow but I can't pretend
> to be an expert here :)

Sorry, I didn't mean to be too dev-opsy. All I really meant is just like
we have a staging branch/channel now that eventually gets rolled into
master, we could have a dev branch/channel which is really unstable and
experimental, a staging branch/channel (which is test in my vernacular),
and master branch/channel (which is prod in my vernacular).

Potluck seemed appropriate for dev for the same reasons it seemed
appropriate for scala/sbt.

-- 
Katherine