October 27, 2021 5:23 PM, "Ludovic Courtès" <l...@gnu.org> wrote:
> Hello Guix! > > The recent ‘guix shell’ addition is almost anecdotal technically yet > important for the project because users interact with Guix primarily > through the CLI. Adding a new command is a commitment (our users must > trust it won’t change overnight), and getting the details wrong could > make us fail to honor that commitment. > > For ‘guix shell’ I left time for comments and repeatedly asked people to > comment; yet pushing it was a bit stressful: Did I make a mistake? Did > everyone with a stake in this really have a chance to comment? I absolutely love the new guix shell! "-ad-hoc" was a bit confusing to understand. I know more about guix shell in 5 minutes than I did with a few years of guix environment! > That makes me think it’s perhaps time for a formalized > request-for-comments (RFC) kind of process for such “major changes”. We > could draw inspiration from one of the many existing processes: Python’s > PEPs, Scheme’s SRFIs, Nix’s RFCs, Rust’s MCPs, etc. I think a major > goal of the process would be to formalize a minimum and a maximum > duration under which an RFC is under evaluation, and a mechanism to > determine whether it’s accepted or withdrawn. I'm all for a RFC! Somehow I missed any communication about this new guix shell, and I normally follow the mailing lists like a 11th grade stalker (not that I have any experience with stalking...I can't really discuss it until the lawsuit is over...). But then again my comments are perhaps not as weighty as others? I have only really been the occasional guix documentation writer. > Thoughts? Anyone with experience with such a process? > > Ludo’.
