We just have 2 different views here. When Guix started, which was about 3 years before I joined, the model was okay. Between 2015 and now the amount of breakage has been extremely reduced due to discussions about more reasonable development models. For a while now we have an informal rfc for bigger changes - this is a result from "please don't do that without asking first" because some of us got upset about assuming that all changes are okay.
I sympathize with your point of view - in production even a couple of breaking commits are bad. We have grown over the last years, but developing reasonable deployment models which fit our group takes time. I'm okay with defining a branching model and use it once we have the tooling and infrastructure for it. Dan Partelly transcribed 2.4K bytes: > No I did not shown or proofed this affirmation. I believe it is sensible. It > is a undeniable reality of software development that bugs are introduced > during development. Having the update to the package manager (which in GuixSD > is very central to the distro itself) > result in a broken system "even if you can roll back” is a very bad thing. It > is my opinion that the current model is both technically bad (exposing users > to broken software , security bugs and so on) and socially bad ( having the > package manager crap on itself due to bugs introduced in the development > cycle may prompt a lot of people to look in to an alternative and creates bad > publicity. It also results in end users wasting time, and time is the most > precious comodity we have. I do not want the OS I use to waste my time. I > want to install the software I need and work with and go on with my life and > work ). Ironically, the problem is easily solved . DO not expose people to > your devel branch where they will get first contact wiith guix bugs and guile > bugs. The situation with GuixSD is somehow complicated by the fact that the > package metadata is compiled as code, but yeah, a stable branch which is > proven to be compilable and preferably regression tested is the first step > IMO towards a better future with GuixSD. Treat is as a product which offers a > rock solid platform for the users. > > And yes, in between 0.14 / 0.15 GuixSD was broken by guix pull a lot. That > is a fact, unfortunately. > > Dan Partelly <dan_parte...@rdsor.ro> writes: > > > >> I pointed this out 4-5 weeks ago when trying GuixSD, on this very list. > >> Thanks for reaffirming the idea In all honesty the current model is very > >> badly broken, and you should not wait for 1.0. I had no other Linux distro > >> break up faster than GuixSD. A stable branch is not enough by itself, > >> (but is the mort important part) you need to ensure that all substitutes > >> are built correctly, and atomically update all substitutes following a > >> successful build of all packages. > >> > >> You should not inflict current model on your users , not even for an 0.1 > > > > While this might apply to some software. I don't believe, and I don't > > think you've shown that this reasoning is appropriate or useful to apply > > to Guix. > > > > Saying that something doesn't work for you is fine, and can be helpful, > > but such a unevidenced extreme view is unhelpful. > >
