Hello! zimoun <zimon.touto...@gmail.com> skribis:
> On Mon, 30 Dec 2019 at 11:35, Ludovic Courtès <l...@gnu.org> wrote: > >> > Wouldn't having a new name for the new behaviour avoid breakage in this >> > situation? >> >> Yes, that’s correct (that’s also one of the suggestions Konrad made). > > Is this statement acted? Is it the consensus by all the maintainers? All I’m saying is that what EuAndreh wrote above is correct; I’m not stating anything as to what solution we should implement. :-) > And I am not clear about what will happens for "guix environment"? > Deprecate for sure. > But after X time: removed or frozen? I guess that’s the whole point of deprecation. > As Arne described the process (bottom of [1]), "guix environment" will > become a kind-of alias of "guix shell/<name-it>". Right? Yes. >> We could take that route. What would we call it, though? I don’t like >> “guix shell” because it doesn’t quite reflect what the command is >> about. No good idea, though. > > Argh! Naming is hard. > Something that reflects what the command is about: "guix environment"? > (joke!! ;-)) Yeah! > Why do you say that "guix shell" does not reflect what the command is about? > Because the command spawns a new shell with options (expanding it, > isolating it, etc.) The command does not necessarily spawn a new shell; it spawns a command in a well-defined environment, and that command might be a shell. Thanks, Ludo’.
