Amirouche Boubekki transcribed 7.8K bytes: > Le lun. 30 juil. 2018 à 23:17, Nils Gillmann <n...@n0.is> a écrit : > > > 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 > > > > You say there is not enough guix developpers.
Who or what exactly are you replying to? My understanding is: We are slowly growing to the point (conmtributor and user wise) where we have to think about the trust people put in us, and - even when most of us work on this as volunteers - look at our development model (or rather how users interact with it). But maybe you meant something else..? > > > > > 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. > > > > > > > > > >
