Re: Ensuring we don't break user systems

[Amirouche Boubekki <amirouche.boubekki@gmail.com>]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 3512 bytes --]

Le lun. 30 juil. 2018 à 23:17, Nils Gillmann <ng0@n0.is> a écrit :

> 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
>

You say there is not enough guix developpers.


> > > 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.
> >
> >
>
>

[-- Attachment #2: Type: text/html, Size: 4107 bytes --]