Re: We need an RFC procedure [Re: Services can now have a default value]

[ludo@gnu.org (Ludovic Courtès)]

Hi ng0,

ng0 <contact.ng0@cryptolab.net> skribis:

> Let's take this thread, starting at
> "https://lists.gnu.org/archive/html/guix-devel/2017-04/msg00329.html".
> Ludovic worked on something, pushed it, did some changes to the relevant
> documentation but further examples in the documentation which are now
> affected weren't fixed with the push. We spent time answering questions
> about broken configurations, assuming everyone who uses GuixSD now and
> in the future has a fairly competent knowledge of Guile, explaining changes
> which could have been avoided - or at least reduced in frequency of questions
> asked - by changing examples.

I think there’s a misunderstanding.  This change is what started the
discussion we’re having with Carlo, but it is a compatible change:
GuixSD configs that previously worked still do.

Thus I don’t think anyone spent time “answering questions about broken
configurations” in this case.  For the same reason, examples in the doc
that were valid before are still valid after the change.

> If Ludovic would've presented this change before applying it, it would've
> been one of the obvious problems: don't just document the change, change
> further documentation sections which rely on this. This way we don't have
> a documentation which presents people examples but contradicts itself later
> on.

What part of the documentation contradicts itself?  I’m confused.

As for posting the change before applying it, I should do more of that.
I’ve taken the bad habit of pushing what I consider as “simple” changes
directly to the repo, but perhaps the criteria should be reconsidered.
:-)

Thoughts?

Ludo’.