From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Received: from list by lists.gnu.org with archive (Exim 4.71)
	id 1gZlMY-0004i9-9W
	for mharc-gwl-devel@gnu.org; Wed, 19 Dec 2018 18:34:50 -0500
Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([2001:4830:134:3::10]:54957)
	by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71)
	(envelope-from <rekado@elephly.net>) id 1gZlMW-0004hs-3d
	for gwl-devel@gnu.org; Wed, 19 Dec 2018 18:34:48 -0500
Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71)
	(envelope-from <rekado@elephly.net>) id 1gZlMV-0007WP-93
	for gwl-devel@gnu.org; Wed, 19 Dec 2018 18:34:48 -0500
Received: from sender-of-o53.zoho.com ([135.84.80.218]:21754)
	by eggs.gnu.org with esmtps (TLS1.0:RSA_AES_256_CBC_SHA1:32)
	(Exim 4.71) (envelope-from <rekado@elephly.net>) id 1gZlMU-0007U6-TQ
	for gwl-devel@gnu.org; Wed, 19 Dec 2018 18:34:47 -0500
References: <87zht1rz30.fsf@elephly.net>
	<95b6b274-d1bc-b0b2-543d-3ceb91e85d1e@gnu.org>
From: Ricardo Wurmus <rekado@elephly.net>
In-reply-to: <95b6b274-d1bc-b0b2-543d-3ceb91e85d1e@gnu.org>
Date: Wed, 19 Dec 2018 23:49:03 +0100
Message-ID: <87tvj9rv34.fsf@elephly.net>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Subject: Re: Moving GWL modules
List-Id: <gwl-devel.gnu.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/options/gwl-devel>,
	<mailto:gwl-devel-request@gnu.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://lists.gnu.org/archive/html/gwl-devel/>
List-Post: <mailto:gwl-devel@gnu.org>
List-Help: <mailto:gwl-devel-request@gnu.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gwl-devel>,
	<mailto:gwl-devel-request@gnu.org?subject=subscribe>
To: Roel Janssen <roel@gnu.org>
Cc: gwl-devel@gnu.org


Hi Roel,

> On 19-12-18 22:22, Ricardo Wurmus wrote:
>> Hi Roel,
>>
>> I=E2=80=99m interested in moving the GWL modules to their own namespace =
to avoid
>> potential clashes with future versions of Guix.  Currently, GWL modules
>> share the =E2=80=9C(guix =E2=80=A6)=E2=80=9D and =E2=80=9C(gnu =E2=80=A6=
)=E2=80=9D namespaces.
>>
>> I think it would be clearer to move all but the scripts (which extend
>> Guix) to =E2=80=9C(gwl =E2=80=A6)=E2=80=9D.
>
> 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=E2=80=99 symbols for compatibility.

>> On a related note: I can never remember if a procedure is defined in
>> =E2=80=9C(gnu workflows)=E2=80=9D or =E2=80=9C(guix workflows)=E2=80=9D.=
  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=E2=80=99s what I thought :)

Thanks for the quick response!

--
Ricardo