Hi Konrad, On Fri, 20 Dec 2019 at 12:24, Konrad Hinsen <konrad.hin...@fastmail.net> wrote:
> 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. As I said, I am not convinced because it lacks concrete examples. Personally, I do not know Guix ressource outside the Guix ecosystem. > 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. Except that "guix environment" will raise warnings. Whatever. > 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. I agree. I do not want to fight about "backward compatibility". As I said, talking about "guix environment", my opinion is that the cost of the change is low. However, we cannot know this cost, only probe and estimate: using my probings, I estimate the cost is low. IMHO, in this case, there is 2 ways to make a decision: - more probings to estimate more precisely; or - say: "no backward compatibility breakage" I am fine with both. :-) - I report my use-case: no cost at all - I propose the name "guix shell" However, I feel I have spent enough time and energy on this topic and I feel a blocking situation so I will move forward to another topic. :-) All the best, simon
