Moving GWL modules

Moving GWL modules

[Ricardo Wurmus]

Hi Roel,

I’m interested in moving the GWL modules to their own namespace to avoid
potential clashes with future versions of Guix.  Currently, GWL modules
share the “(guix …)” and “(gnu …)” namespaces.

I think it would be clearer to move all but the scripts (which extend
Guix) to “(gwl …)”.

What do you think?

On a related note: I can never remember if a procedure is defined in
“(gnu workflows)” or “(guix workflows)”.  Do you have a mnemonic?  Is
this separation necessary or would it be fine to rearrange things?

Thanks!

--
Ricardo

Re: Moving GWL modules

[Roel Janssen]

On 19-12-18 22:22, Ricardo Wurmus wrote:
> Hi Roel,
> 
> I’m interested in moving the GWL modules to their own namespace to avoid
> potential clashes with future versions of Guix.  Currently, GWL modules
> share the “(guix …)” and “(gnu …)” namespaces.
> 
> I think it would be clearer to move all but the scripts (which extend
> Guix) to “(gwl …)”.

I like this change.  So the new modules would be:
(gwl processes) and (gwl workflows)

Could we keep (guix processes) and (guix workflows) for backwards 
compatibility?  At least for now, so we don't break existing workflows 
right away.

> On a related note: I can never remember if a procedure is defined in
> “(gnu workflows)” or “(guix workflows)”.  Do you have a mnemonic?  Is
> this separation necessary or would it be fine to rearrange things?

It's fine to rearrange things.  I mimic'd the modules for Guix's 
packages ((guix packages) and (gnu packages)).

Kind regards,
Roel Janssen

Re: Moving GWL modules

[Ricardo Wurmus]

Hi Roel,

> On 19-12-18 22:22, Ricardo Wurmus wrote:
>> Hi Roel,
>>
>> I’m interested in moving the GWL modules to their own namespace to avoid
>> potential clashes with future versions of Guix.  Currently, GWL modules
>> share the “(guix …)” and “(gnu …)” namespaces.
>>
>> I think it would be clearer to move all but the scripts (which extend
>> Guix) to “(gwl …)”.
>
> I like this change.  So the new modules would be:
> (gwl processes) and (gwl workflows)

Correct.

> Could we keep (guix processes) and (guix workflows) for backwards
> compatibility?  At least for now, so we don't break existing workflows
> right away.

Yes, we can keep them for now; or we could let them re-export all of the
new modules’ symbols for compatibility.

>> On a related note: I can never remember if a procedure is defined in
>> “(gnu workflows)” or “(guix workflows)”.  Do you have a mnemonic?  Is
>> this separation necessary or would it be fine to rearrange things?
>
> It's fine to rearrange things.  I mimic'd the modules for Guix's
> packages ((guix packages) and (gnu packages)).

That’s what I thought :)

Thanks for the quick response!

--
Ricardo