On Mon, May 22, 2017 at 11:23:23PM +0200, Ricardo Wurmus wrote:
> Ludovic Courtès writes:
> > What would be stable in the “stable branch”, packages or Guix? :-)
> >
> > A branch where Guix itself is stable would be nice, though it would need
> > careful merging from master regularly.
>
> This wo
Ludovic Courtès writes:
> Petter skribis:
>
>> If I may make a suggestion, coming from a place of ignorance.
>>
>> How about a stable branch that would be opt-in?
>
> What would be stable in the “stable branch”, packages or Guix? :-)
>
> A branch where Guix itself is stable would be nice, thou
Petter skribis:
> If I may make a suggestion, coming from a place of ignorance.
>
> How about a stable branch that would be opt-in?
What would be stable in the “stable branch”, packages or Guix? :-)
A branch where Guix itself is stable would be nice, though it would need
careful merging from m
If I may make a suggestion, coming from a place of ignorance.
How about a stable branch that would be opt-in?
On Thu, 27 Apr 2017 15:29:53 +0200
l...@gnu.org (Ludovic Courtès) wrote:
> Ricardo Wurmus skribis:
>
> > It’s a little unfortunate that packages are developed together with
> > everyth
Ricardo Wurmus skribis:
> It’s a little unfortunate that packages are developed together with
> everything else, because this means that there is no way for people to
> opt out of breaking changes until the next release without also opting
> out of getting any updates at all.
It’s both a strengt
Ricardo Wurmus transcribed 1.0K bytes:
>
> Ludovic Courtès writes:
>
> > As for posting the change before applying it, I should do more of that.
> > I’ve taken the bad habit of pushing what I consider as “simple” changes
> > directly to the repo, but perhaps the criteria should be reconsidered.
Ludovic Courtès transcribed 1.7K bytes:
> Hi ng0,
>
> ng0 skribis:
>
> > Let's take this thread, starting at
> > "https://lists.gnu.org/archive/html/guix-devel/2017-04/msg00329.html";.
> > Ludovic worked on something, pushed it, did some changes to the relevant
> > documentation but further exam
Ludovic Courtès writes:
> As for posting the change before applying it, I should do more of that.
> I’ve taken the bad habit of pushing what I consider as “simple” changes
> directly to the repo, but perhaps the criteria should be reconsidered.
> :-)
I think it’s fine to push simple changes dir
Hi ng0,
ng0 skribis:
> Let's take this thread, starting at
> "https://lists.gnu.org/archive/html/guix-devel/2017-04/msg00329.html";.
> Ludovic worked on something, pushed it, did some changes to the relevant
> documentation but further examples in the documentation which are now
> affected weren
Ricardo Wurmus transcribed 0.7K bytes:
>
> ng0 writes:
>
> > I want an formal, publicly tracked (not *just* on the mailinglist) RFC
> > (like in Rust or similar projects) procedure for all things which
> > can break currently existing configurations. Introducing these changes would
> > require
ng0 writes:
> I want an formal, publicly tracked (not *just* on the mailinglist) RFC (like
> in Rust or similar projects) procedure for all things which
> can break currently existing configurations. Introducing these changes would
> require to document properly what needs to changed so that pe
Carlo Zancanaro transcribed 2.2K bytes:
> On Fri, Apr 21 2017, Ludovic Courtès wrote:
> > A ‘define-service-type’ macro or similar could generate either code the
> > current framework (with and and
> > ) or for SRFI-99-style records if we later to go that
> > route.
> >
> > So I think we should s
12 matches
Mail list logo
