From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Konrad Hinsen Subject: Re: bug#38529: Make --ad-hoc the default for guix environment proposed deprecation mechanism Date: Fri, 20 Dec 2019 12:24:00 +0100 Message-ID: References: <87eexeu8mo.fsf@ambrevar.xyz> <87k16vdise.fsf@gnu.org> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain Return-path: Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([2001:470:142:3::10]:45214) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1iiGO5-00062b-9z for guix-devel@gnu.org; Fri, 20 Dec 2019 06:24:06 -0500 Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1iiGO4-0005Qs-Av for guix-devel@gnu.org; Fri, 20 Dec 2019 06:24:05 -0500 Received: from out2-smtp.messagingengine.com ([66.111.4.26]:57501) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtps (TLS1.0:DHE_RSA_AES_256_CBC_SHA1:32) (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1iiGO3-0005N1-JH for guix-devel@gnu.org; Fri, 20 Dec 2019 06:24:03 -0500 In-Reply-To: List-Id: "Development of GNU Guix and the GNU System distribution." List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Errors-To: guix-devel-bounces+gcggd-guix-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Sender: "Guix-devel" To: zimoun Cc: Guix Devel , 38529@debbugs.gnu.org Hi Simon, > Assuming "guix environment" would stay and following the proposed > plan, you would need to add GUIX_ENVIRONMENT_DEPRECATED=1 on the top > of your script. In this would not be a problem for travelling back in > time. The problem is not how I update my scripts - I can manage that, no matter what it takes. The problem is scripts circulating in public repositories, tutorials, etc. New users will find them and use them for inspiration. It's very discouraging to see examples from tutorials fail or do something weird. The main precedent is the Python 2->3 transition. There are tons of GitHub repositories with Python code but no indication if it's 2, 3, or both. I even had to use one that executed with either 2 or 3, but gave different results. It takes a lot of motivation to persist. For guix, there's the additional issue that we use the reproducibility of builds as an argument. Non-reproducible examples are then a bit of a credibility problem. Cheers, Konrad.