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: Wed, 18 Dec 2019 10:43:46 +0100 Message-ID: References: <87eexeu8mo.fsf@ambrevar.xyz> <87k16vdise.fsf@gnu.org> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Return-path: Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([2001:470:142:3::10]:50380) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1ihVs4-0003tc-4u for guix-devel@gnu.org; Wed, 18 Dec 2019 04:43:57 -0500 Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1ihVs3-0002nY-2X for guix-devel@gnu.org; Wed, 18 Dec 2019 04:43:56 -0500 Received: from wout3-smtp.messagingengine.com ([64.147.123.19]:42213) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtps (TLS1.0:DHE_RSA_AES_256_CBC_SHA1:32) (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1ihVs2-0002hR-IN for guix-devel@gnu.org; Wed, 18 Dec 2019 04:43:54 -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, > Maybe I miss a point. It is not: "watch out, this will do something > else in the future" but "watch out, this was doing something else in > the past and the change happened the in ". Concrete example: I am writing a tutorial about using Guix for reproducible research. It shows several uses of "guix environment", some of them without '=E2=80=93add-hoc' or '=E2=80=93inputs-of'. I know my examp= les will cease to work in a few months. What am I supposed to do about this? > First, I am not convinced that there is not so much scripts that will > be broken. And second, I am not convinced neither that these very > scripts need time-traveling. Perhaps it's just me, but I use "guix environment" quite a lot in scripts, in order to make them more reproducible. Here's a simple example: #!/usr/bin/env bash guix environment --container --ad-hoc gcc-toolchain <> The first rule of backwards-compatibility is: never change the meaning >> of an existing valid command/API. Add new valid syntax, deprecate old >> valid syntax, but don't change the meaning of something that was and >> will be valid. > > I agree on the rule. > But it is mitigated but the number of users and the popularity of the too= l. ;-) Indeed! > Yes, it is probably the most adequate to do. But it is sad to loose > the good name "guix environment"... and we know that naming is hard. > ;-) I definitely agree. As a lesson for the future, maybe we should use not-so-nice names for new commands during a kind of beta-testing phase. Cheers, Konrad