Hi Mark,
> I'm not sure what you're trying to argue above. To me, it looks like an
> argument in favor of my position, namely that a stable version of Guix
> should include _all_ of Guix, not just the packages.
All, probably not, some, probably yes. What I am arguing is that the
productive coexi
Konrad Hinsen writes:
>> I also agree with you that we don’t need channels for providing a stable
>> branch. The biggest obstacle to providing a stable branch is not
>> technical, but it requires people maintaining it.
>
> Look at this from the opposite end: if you were interested in
> maintaini
Hi Ricardo,
> I also agree with you that we don’t need channels for providing a stable
> branch. The biggest obstacle to providing a stable branch is not
> technical, but it requires people maintaining it.
Look at this from the opposite end: if you were interested in
maintaining a stable softwar
Hello Guix,
Mark H Weaver skribis:
> Both of you seem to have reached the conclusion that third-party
> channels are a prerequisite for having a 'stable' branch. I disagree.
Same here. We could already be doing that (I’m skeptical about the
feasibility, maintainability, and relevance of a “st
Hi Mark,
> I'd like to say again that I have grave concerns that this could be the
> death-knell for long-term innovation in Guix. It's likely that whenever
> a change is proposed that will break these third-party channels, there
> will be resistance, and efforts to preserve backward compatibil
Hi,
Alex Sassmannshausen writes:
> My primary interest in channels at the moment comes from believing that
> having a "stable" channel would be incredibly useful to increase
> adoption rate of Guix. And for me.
Konrad Hinsen writes:
> Look at the wider Linux world: there are people who want to
