Alex Kost <alez...@gmail.com> skribis: > Ludovic Courtès (2016-06-02 22:40 +0300) wrote: > >> Alex Kost <alez...@gmail.com> skribis: >> >>> Ludovic Courtès (2016-04-20 18:31 +0300) wrote: >> >> [...] >> >>>>>> However, I think (1) the title should describe the bug, not the >>>>>> solution, and (2) ‘guix edit’ does what it says IMO, even if it can >>>>>> occasionally stumble upon read-only files. >>>>> >>>>> OK, well I don't know what to do with it then. What about the following >>>>> title: «"guix edit" name may be confusing»? >>>> >>>> Perfect! :-) >>> >>> Done. >> >> I’m rather inclined to close this bug as ‘wontfix’. Thoughts? > > I would prefer it to be solved by renaming "guix edit" to "guix package > definition", but I think it will not be welcomed by most users and > authors, so 'wontfix' is fine by me.
I’m of course unsure what “most” users would think, but I find ‘guix package definition’ too wordy and probably too hard to find for a newcomer. OK, marking it as wontfix, and we can always revisit the issue later if people disagree! Ludo’.
