"guix edit" name may be confusing

DoneSubmitted by myglc2.
Details
4 participants
  • Alex Kost
  • Andreas Enge
  • Ludovic Courtès
  • myglc2
Owner
unassigned
Severity
normal
M
M
myglc2 wrote on 7 Feb 2016 19:04
‘guix edit’ & ‘M-x guix-edit' typo, rename, & mode change
(address . bug-guix@gnu.org)
8737t4jt1j.fsf@gmail.com
Alex Kost <alezost@gmail.com> writes:[...]
Toggle quote (6 lines)> The purpose of "M-x guix-edit" Emacs command (and "guix edit" shell> command) is just to show you the source code of the package. This> source is usually placed in the store, and you shouldn't edit it. If> you are going to contribute to guix, (info "(guix) Building from Git")> is the right way.
From guix INFO:
6.2 Invoking ‘guix edit’[...]launches the program specified in the ‘VISUAL’ or in the ‘EDITOR’environment variable to edit the recipe of GCC 4.8.4 and that of Vim."
TYPO:
"edit" (last line above) should be replaced with "view", "inspect", or"examine".
RENAME:
Calling these functions 'guix edit' and 'M-x guix-edit' implies that theuser will be able to modify the recipe, but this is not actually thecase. The functions should be given a more informative and accuratename, such as: 'guix view', 'guix inspect', or 'guix examine'.
MODE CHANGE:
In emacs, read-only .scm files should be opened in view-mode.
A
A
Andreas Enge wrote on 7 Feb 2016 19:58
Re: bug#22587: ‘guix edit ’ & ‘M-x guix-edit' typo, rename, & mode change
(name . myglc2)(address . myglc2@gmail.com)(address . 22587@debbugs.gnu.org)
20160207185812.GA24466@debian
On Sun, Feb 07, 2016 at 01:04:40PM -0500, myglc2 wrote:
Toggle quote (8 lines)> TYPO:> "edit" (last line above) should be replaced with "view", "inspect", or> "examine".> RENAME:> Calling these functions 'guix edit' and 'M-x guix-edit' implies that the> user will be able to modify the recipe, but this is not actually the> case.
This depends on the user's rights. In a global installation, root is allowedto modify. In a git checkout, one would need to do "./pre-inst-env guix edit"like with all other guix commands.
Andreas
M
M
myglc2 wrote on 7 Feb 2016 20:22
Re: bug#22587: ‘guix edit’ & ‘M-x guix-edit' typo, rename, & mode change
(address . bug-guix@gnu.org)
87y4awiav7.fsf@gmail.com
Andreas Enge <andreas@enge.fr> writes:
Toggle quote (15 lines)> On Sun, Feb 07, 2016 at 01:04:40PM -0500, myglc2 wrote:>> TYPO:>> "edit" (last line above) should be replaced with "view", "inspect", or>> "examine".>> RENAME:>> Calling these functions 'guix edit' and 'M-x guix-edit' implies that the>> user will be able to modify the recipe, but this is not actually the>> case.>> This depends on the user's rights. In a global installation, root is allowed> to modify. In a git checkout, one would need to do "./pre-inst-env guix edit"> like with all other guix commands.>> Andreas
Of course, running as root, 'guix edit' opens the recipe read-only andfrom there, root can do whatever he/she likes.
But, AIUI, this goes against the guix concept of an immutable store.
To describe and name this function to imply that one could/should editrecipes in the store based on the "corner case" of root having theultimable ability to do so seems counter to how you would want toencourage even a root user to proceed.
A
A
Andreas Enge wrote on 7 Feb 2016 20:34
Re: bug#22587: ‘guix edit ’ & ‘M-x guix-edit' typo, rename, & mode change
(name . myglc2)(address . myglc2@gmail.com)(address . 22587@debbugs.gnu.org)
20160207193445.GA26755@debian
On Sun, Feb 07, 2016 at 02:22:36PM -0500, myglc2 wrote:
Toggle quote (6 lines)> But, AIUI, this goes against the guix concept of an immutable store.> To describe and name this function to imply that one could/should edit> recipes in the store based on the "corner case" of root having the> ultimable ability to do so seems counter to how you would want to> encourage even a root user to proceed.
Recipes are not in the store. For instance, after doing a "make install",they are in $PREFIX/share/guile/site/2.0/.
Or maybe they are in the store after a "guix pull"?
I am only using the "make install" version for a system-wide installation,and a git checkout for making more recent recipes available to one user.
Andreas
M
M
myglc2 wrote on 7 Feb 2016 21:26
Re: bug#22587: ‘guix edit’ & ‘M-x guix-edit' typo, rename, & mode change
(name . Andreas Enge)(address . andreas@enge.fr)(address . 22587@debbugs.gnu.org)
87twlki7w0.fsf@gmail.com
Andreas Enge <andreas@enge.fr> writes:
Toggle quote (17 lines)> On Sun, Feb 07, 2016 at 02:22:36PM -0500, myglc2 wrote:>> But, AIUI, this goes against the guix concept of an immutable store.>> To describe and name this function to imply that one could/should edit>> recipes in the store based on the "corner case" of root having the>> ultimable ability to do so seems counter to how you would want to>> encourage even a root user to proceed.>> Recipes are not in the store. For instance, after doing a "make install",> they are in $PREFIX/share/guile/site/2.0/.>> Or maybe they are in the store after a "guix pull"?>> I am only using the "make install" version for a system-wide installation,> and a git checkout for making more recent recipes available to one user.>> Andreas
On guixSD they are found under /root/.config/guix/latest which points,for example, into the store like this:
latest -> /gnu/store/96s6sh92xyw0rljp3w1zxc8h3s4vb5zf-guix-latest
So it seems to me that editing these files will essenctially "corrupt" aguix system.
A
A
Alex Kost wrote on 8 Feb 2016 09:34
(name . myglc2)(address . myglc2@gmail.com)(address . 22587@debbugs.gnu.org)
87oabrr460.fsf@gmail.com
myglc2 (2016-02-07 21:04 +0300) wrote:
Toggle quote (12 lines)> From guix INFO:>> 6.2 Invoking ‘guix edit’> [...]> launches the program specified in the ‘VISUAL’ or in the ‘EDITOR’> environment variable to edit the recipe of GCC 4.8.4 and that of Vim.">> TYPO:>> "edit" (last line above) should be replaced with "view", "inspect", or> "examine".
Just to mention - I like "edit" name :-)
Toggle quote (7 lines)> RENAME:>> Calling these functions 'guix edit' and 'M-x guix-edit' implies that the> user will be able to modify the recipe, but this is not actually the> case. The functions should be given a more informative and accurate> name, such as: 'guix view', 'guix inspect', or 'guix examine'.
Along with the package recipes that come with Guix, a user can also havehis/her own packages (specified using GUIX_PACKAGE_PATH env var), and"guix edit my-super-package" opens a user's file with this package. Itis highly likely that this file is editable, so "guix edit" is a perfectname in this case I think. IMO it's a user responsibility to understandwhat files can be edited and what cannot.
But I agree that this may be confusing, so maybe we should clarify themanual to explain in (info "(guix) Invoking guix edit") that store filesmust not be edited.
Toggle quote (4 lines)> MODE CHANGE:>> In emacs, read-only .scm files should be opened in view-mode.
I don't agree. For example, when you open "/etc/hosts" (or whatever)file in Emacs, you get a message:
Note: file is write protected
which indicates that it is opened read-only, but view-mode is not usedby default. You can enable it manually if you wish. The same thinghappens with package files.
-- Alex
L
L
Ludovic Courtès wrote on 8 Feb 2016 16:30
(name . Alex Kost)(address . alezost@gmail.com)
878u2vfcdc.fsf@gnu.org
Alex Kost <alezost@gmail.com> skribis:
Toggle quote (2 lines)> myglc2 (2016-02-07 21:04 +0300) wrote:
[...]
Toggle quote (12 lines)>> Calling these functions 'guix edit' and 'M-x guix-edit' implies that the>> user will be able to modify the recipe, but this is not actually the>> case. The functions should be given a more informative and accurate>> name, such as: 'guix view', 'guix inspect', or 'guix examine'.>> Along with the package recipes that come with Guix, a user can also have> his/her own packages (specified using GUIX_PACKAGE_PATH env var), and> "guix edit my-super-package" opens a user's file with this package. It> is highly likely that this file is editable, so "guix edit" is a perfect> name in this case I think. IMO it's a user responsibility to understand> what files can be edited and what cannot.
I sympathize with the frustration of myglc2, but I agree with you Alex.
Toggle quote (4 lines)> But I agree that this may be confusing, so maybe we should clarify the> manual to explain in (info "(guix) Invoking guix edit") that store files> must not be edited.
Yes. Can one of you propose a way to phrase it?
I also had in mind that ‘someday’ we could have:
guix edit --clone foo
which would automatically open, say,~/.config/guix/personal/packages.scm with a template like:
(define-module (personal packages) #:use-module (guix packages) #:use-module (gnu packages foo))
(define-public my-foo (package (inherit foo) (name "foo-personal")))
It’s a bit of work, but it’d be nice.
Ludo’.
M
M
myglc2 wrote on 8 Feb 2016 19:29
(address . bug-guix@gnu.org)
87twlj6op5.fsf@gmail.com
Alex Kost <alezost@gmail.com> writes:
Toggle quote (31 lines)> myglc2 (2016-02-07 21:04 +0300) wrote:>>> From guix INFO:>>>> 6.2 Invoking ‘guix edit’>> [...]>> launches the program specified in the ‘VISUAL’ or in the ‘EDITOR’>> environment variable to edit the recipe of GCC 4.8.4 and that of Vim.">>>> TYPO:>>>> "edit" (last line above) should be replaced with "view", "inspect", or>> "examine".>> Just to mention - I like "edit" name :-)>>> RENAME:>>>> Calling these functions 'guix edit' and 'M-x guix-edit' implies that the>> user will be able to modify the recipe, but this is not actually the>> case. The functions should be given a more informative and accurate>> name, such as: 'guix view', 'guix inspect', or 'guix examine'.>> Along with the package recipes that come with Guix, a user can also have> his/her own packages (specified using GUIX_PACKAGE_PATH env var), and> "guix edit my-super-package" opens a user's file with this package. It> is highly likely that this file is editable, so "guix edit" is a perfect> name in this case I think. IMO it's a user responsibility to understand> what files can be edited and what cannot.>
Sorry this is so long, but I think this is a useability issue that isworth discussing more.
I understand your point-of-view, but I think it is much morepackager-centric than you should plan on your ultimate user base being.
If we think about the mix of guix users when it is more widelysuccessful, as I strongly believe it will be, a majority (80-90%) willbe "simply" managing and configuring their computer and/or useraccount. They will NOT make packages.
If this is the case, the majority of people clicking on "guix edit" willnot understand "what files can be edited and what cannot." The very ideathat a recipe on their computer can make something they need will be aradical leap. For these people, taking the fist look at a guix recipewill be a step deeper into guix.
Such a user's first interaction might run along the lines of mine ...
- Hmm, I want to see an actual recipe.
- Oh wow, it says I can edit a recipe right here!
- Hmm, maybe I shouldn't because I don't want to break something.
- But they wouldn't call it "guix edit" if it wasn't OK to change stuff, right?
- OK, I'll give it a shot. I'll look at something I am familiar with ...
- 'guix edit screen'
- WOW look at that. Finds the recipe, opens an editor, COOL!
- Hmm, I'mm make a little change, & see what happens.
call-interactively: Buffer is read-only: #<buffer screen.scm> [18 times]
- OK, it is actually not that obvious or easy to get out of emacs at this point even for emacs users (try it). Now, pretend you know nothing about emacs. What would you be thinking and experiencing? A non-emacs user might be thinking -- "Why is it beeping! Did I do something wrong! Is guix broken! ARGH! Let me out of this thing!" -- So I expect we have lost the emacs non-user right here, but me, I continued along ...
- Oh yeah, its read-only. No problem, I'll do ‘C-x C-q’
- Now, change save it ...
Saving file /gnu/store/24mbii9wjlyzfzsqwfmcvz6vz2fv5n6g-guix-0.9.0.c3f29bc/share/guile/site/2.0/gnu/packages/screen.scm... Cannot write backup file; backing up in ~/.emacs.d/%backup%~ Error: (file-error "Setting ACL" "read-only file system" "/gnu/store/24mbii9wjlyzfzsqwfmcvz6vz2fv5n6g-guix-0.9.0.c3f29bc/share/guile/site/2. Auto-saving... Auto-saving screen.scm: Opening output file: read-only file system, /gnu/store/24mbii9wjlyzfzsqwfmcvz6vz2fv5n6g-guix-0.9.0.c3f29bc/share/guile/site/2.0/gnu/packages/#screen.scm# Quit Auto-saving... Auto-saving screen.scm: Opening output file: read-only file system, /gnu/store/24mbii9wjlyzfzsqwfmcvz6vz2fv5n6g-guix-0.9.0.c3f29bc/share/guile/site/2.0/gnu/packages/#screen.scm# Quit
- ARGH! I have no idea where else I should save this. Let me out of here 'C-g C-g C-g C-g C-g'!!
- WHEW, that was unpleasant!
- I must not be getting some big concept, I have to study the doc more.
So, I guess I am just saying...
Why point a new user taking their first look at a guix recipe down thisalley?
Can't we find a more user-friendly way to show them their first realrecipe?
Toggle quote (17 lines)> But I agree that this may be confusing, so maybe we should clarify the> manual to explain in (info "(guix) Invoking guix edit") that store files> must not be edited.>>> MODE CHANGE:>>>> In emacs, read-only .scm files should be opened in view-mode.>> I don't agree. For example, when you open "/etc/hosts" (or whatever)> file in Emacs, you get a message:>> Note: file is write protected>> which indicates that it is opened read-only, but view-mode is not used> by default. You can enable it manually if you wish. The same thing> happens with package files.
Yes, of course, Emacs is a chainsaw. That is what we love about it.
But I believe that, for the majority of your future guix users, youshould think in terms of providing some protective gear and trainingwheels.
Then you can use 'C-u' or something similar to empower the experienceduser.
A
A
Alex Kost wrote on 18 Apr 2016 10:37
(name . myglc2)(address . myglc2@gmail.com)(address . 22587@debbugs.gnu.org)
878u0bia77.fsf@gmail.com
myglc2 (2016-02-08 21:29 +0300) wrote:
Toggle quote (18 lines)> Alex Kost <alezost@gmail.com> writes:>>> myglc2 (2016-02-07 21:04 +0300) wrote:>>>>> From guix INFO:>>>>>> 6.2 Invoking ‘guix edit’>>> [...]>>> launches the program specified in the ‘VISUAL’ or in the ‘EDITOR’>>> environment variable to edit the recipe of GCC 4.8.4 and that of Vim.">>>>>> TYPO:>>>>>> "edit" (last line above) should be replaced with "view", "inspect", or>>> "examine".>>>> Just to mention - I like "edit" name :-)
I changed my mind, I don't like it anymore :-(
Toggle quote (47 lines)>>> RENAME:>>>>>> Calling these functions 'guix edit' and 'M-x guix-edit' implies that the>>> user will be able to modify the recipe, but this is not actually the>>> case. The functions should be given a more informative and accurate>>> name, such as: 'guix view', 'guix inspect', or 'guix examine'.>>>> Along with the package recipes that come with Guix, a user can also have>> his/her own packages (specified using GUIX_PACKAGE_PATH env var), and>> "guix edit my-super-package" opens a user's file with this package. It>> is highly likely that this file is editable, so "guix edit" is a perfect>> name in this case I think. IMO it's a user responsibility to understand>> what files can be edited and what cannot.>> Sorry this is so long, but I think this is a useability issue that is> worth discussing more.>> I understand your point-of-view, but I think it is much more> packager-centric than you should plan on your ultimate user base being.>> If we think about the mix of guix users when it is more widely> successful, as I strongly believe it will be, a majority (80-90%) will> be "simply" managing and configuring their computer and/or user> account. They will NOT make packages.>> If this is the case, the majority of people clicking on "guix edit" will> not understand "what files can be edited and what cannot." The very idea> that a recipe on their computer can make something they need will be a> radical leap. For these people, taking the fist look at a guix recipe> will be a step deeper into guix.>> Such a user's first interaction might run along the lines of mine ...>> - Hmm, I want to see an actual recipe.>> - Oh wow, it says I can edit a recipe right here!>> - Hmm, maybe I shouldn't because I don't want to break something.>> - But they wouldn't call it "guix edit" if it wasn't OK to change stuff,> right?>> - OK, I'll give it a shot. I'll look at something I am familiar with ...>> - 'guix edit screen'>> - WOW look at that. Finds the recipe, opens an editor, COOL!
[...]
Now I agree with this. There was another person¹ who was confused by"edit" name, and I think there will be more. OTOH if it will be renamedto anything else, I'm afraid some people will still think they can justmodify the package definition in place. But "guix edit" is…, well, notthe best name we can have.
Moreover, I think there are inconsistencies in guix commands. Forexample, we have "guix system build" to build a system, but "guix build"to build a package. IMO "guix package build" would be a better choice.
In general, I think it would be good to move package commands inside"guix package" (which is probably a different direction to Andy'ssuggestion²), e.g, to make "guix package lint", "guix package size",etc.
So, returning to "guix edit". I think any of: "view", "recipe","definition" are better. I would prefer "guix package definition", notjust "guix definition", as in future there may appear a way to "edit"other things. For example, I've sent a patchset³ to go to licensedefinitions in Emacs. So analogously we could have "guix licensedefinition" (along with "guix license list" and similar).
I realize that making subcommands for "guix package" and removing "guixgraph", "guix lint" and other is radical, but I think it is the rightway to organize package commands.
¹ https://gnunet.org/bot/log/guix/2016-03-07#T948796² http://lists.gnu.org/archive/html/guix-devel/2015-08/msg00044.html³ http://lists.gnu.org/archive/html/guix-devel/2016-04/msg00721.html
-- Alex
L
L
Ludovic Courtès wrote on 18 Apr 2016 19:41
(name . Alex Kost)(address . alezost@gmail.com)
87h9ey95mt.fsf@gnu.org
It seems to me that this bug has no clear purpose, or too broad apurpose, or something.
Could you retitle it, or close it, or fix it, whichever is appropriate?:-)
Ludo’.
M
M
myglc2 wrote on 18 Apr 2016 23:10
(address . bug-guix@gnu.org)
86fuuizkqy.fsf@gmail.com
Alex Kost <alezost@gmail.com> writes:
Toggle quote (22 lines)> myglc2 (2016-02-08 21:29 +0300) wrote:>>> Alex Kost <alezost@gmail.com> writes:>>>>> myglc2 (2016-02-07 21:04 +0300) wrote:>>>>>>> From guix INFO:>>>>>>>> 6.2 Invoking ‘guix edit’>>>> [...]>>>> launches the program specified in the ‘VISUAL’ or in the ‘EDITOR’>>>> environment variable to edit the recipe of GCC 4.8.4 and that of Vim.">>>>>>>> TYPO:>>>>>>>> "edit" (last line above) should be replaced with "view", "inspect", or>>>> "examine".>>>>>> Just to mention - I like "edit" name :-)>> I changed my mind, I don't like it anymore :-(
Good to hear.
Toggle quote (64 lines)>>>> RENAME:>>>>>>>> Calling these functions 'guix edit' and 'M-x guix-edit' implies that the>>>> user will be able to modify the recipe, but this is not actually the>>>> case. The functions should be given a more informative and accurate>>>> name, such as: 'guix view', 'guix inspect', or 'guix examine'.>>>>>> Along with the package recipes that come with Guix, a user can also have>>> his/her own packages (specified using GUIX_PACKAGE_PATH env var), and>>> "guix edit my-super-package" opens a user's file with this package. It>>> is highly likely that this file is editable, so "guix edit" is a perfect>>> name in this case I think. IMO it's a user responsibility to understand>>> what files can be edited and what cannot.>>>> Sorry this is so long, but I think this is a useability issue that is>> worth discussing more.>>>> I understand your point-of-view, but I think it is much more>> packager-centric than you should plan on your ultimate user base being.>>>> If we think about the mix of guix users when it is more widely>> successful, as I strongly believe it will be, a majority (80-90%) will>> be "simply" managing and configuring their computer and/or user>> account. They will NOT make packages.>>>> If this is the case, the majority of people clicking on "guix edit" will>> not understand "what files can be edited and what cannot." The very idea>> that a recipe on their computer can make something they need will be a>> radical leap. For these people, taking the fist look at a guix recipe>> will be a step deeper into guix.>>>> Such a user's first interaction might run along the lines of mine ...>>>> - Hmm, I want to see an actual recipe.>>>> - Oh wow, it says I can edit a recipe right here!>>>> - Hmm, maybe I shouldn't because I don't want to break something.>>>> - But they wouldn't call it "guix edit" if it wasn't OK to change stuff,>> right?>>>> - OK, I'll give it a shot. I'll look at something I am familiar with ...>>>> - 'guix edit screen'>>>> - WOW look at that. Finds the recipe, opens an editor, COOL!> [...]>> Now I agree with this. There was another person¹ who was confused by> "edit" name, and I think there will be more. OTOH if it will be renamed> to anything else, I'm afraid some people will still think they can just> modify the package definition in place. But "guix edit" is…, well, not> the best name we can have.>> Moreover, I think there are inconsistencies in guix commands. For> example, we have "guix system build" to build a system, but "guix build"> to build a package. IMO "guix package build" would be a better choice.>> In general, I think it would be good to move package commands inside> "guix package" (which is probably a different direction to Andy's> suggestion²), e.g, to make "guix package lint", "guix package size",> etc.
For overall Guix usability, the overloading of a single guix command foreverything is not so good. When you eventually create a man page, itwill be intimidating for someone just trying to do per-user packagemanagement, which the majority of, and least sophisticated users, willbe trying to do.
On the other hand there are several "classes" of commands and this isreflected by the guix CLI being described in several logically differentparts of the doc, but not, as you point out, by being differentiated inthe CLI.
A possibly better approach would be to explicitly split the guixcommand-verse into command classes to better match the structure of thedoc. For example, per-user ('guix ...'), global-system ('guix-sys ...'),and developer ('guix-dev ...'), or something similar.
Since the most frequently used commands will be per-user packagemanagement, I think you should replace 'guix package' with 'guix' andpromote the non-package commands to be hyphenated (ALA, guix-daemon).
This would, in turn, give rise to emacs functions something like:
OLD NEW-------------------------------------------------------------------user:guix-edit guix-view-definitionguix-installed-packages guix-installed-packagesguix-installed-user-packages NAadmin:guix-installed-system-packages guix-sys-installed-packagesdeveloper:guix-hydra-build-list-latest-builds guix-dev-hydra-build-list-latest-buildsguix-edit guix-dev-edit-definition
While this would be not-so-nice for a power user, it would make iteasier for a less experienced user to find a relevant command in the seaof 'M-x commands' in the *Completions* buffer. This kind of naming maynot be typical for emacs, but I think it is probably justifiedconsidering the range of functionality currently provided by Guix.
Toggle quote (7 lines)> So, returning to "guix edit". I think any of: "view", "recipe",> "definition" are better. I would prefer "guix package definition",> not just "guix definition", as in future there may appear a way to> "edit" other things. For example, I've sent a patchset³ to go to> license definitions in Emacs. So analogously we could have "guix> license definition" (along with "guix license list" and similar).
The best choice is probably the term that is most consistent with thedoc and (hopefully some-day-existent) glossary. Based on present usage"definition" has stronger support (and BTW, "recipe" needs to bereplaced with definition in a few places).
I actually think "recipe" is more intuitive and better connotes the ideaof a formula for making a package. But if you use recipe you should alsochange "definition" to "recipe" where appropriate in the doc.
The other thing to consider is emacs support for editing manifests,which are weakly documented and supported now, but would surely be niceto have. So maybe ultimately something like:
user:guix view definition <package>orguix view recipe <package>
guix edit manifest <manifest>
developer:guix-dev edit definition <package>orguix-dev edit recipe <package>
Toggle quote (8 lines)> I realize that making subcommands for "guix package" and removing "guix> graph", "guix lint" and other is radical, but I think it is the right> way to organize package commands.>> ¹ https://gnunet.org/bot/log/guix/2016-03-07#T948796> ² http://lists.gnu.org/archive/html/guix-devel/2015-08/msg00044.html> ³ http://lists.gnu.org/archive/html/guix-devel/2016-04/msg00721.html
Maybe radical changes are needed. Much easier to do now than later ;-)
A
A
Alex Kost wrote on 19 Apr 2016 10:18
(name . Ludovic Courtès)(address . ludo@gnu.org)(address . 22587@debbugs.gnu.org)
87y48ahuza.fsf@gmail.com
Ludovic Courtès (2016-04-18 20:41 +0300) wrote:
Toggle quote (6 lines)> It seems to me that this bug has no clear purpose, or too broad a> purpose, or something.>> Could you retitle it, or close it, or fix it, whichever is appropriate?> :-)
Was it for me? I think the main purpose of this report was to tell usthat "edit" name is confusing. So I would retitle it to "Rename 'guixedit' as it is confusing". But I don't know how; can it be done bysending some control message?
-- Alex
L
L
Ludovic Courtès wrote on 19 Apr 2016 12:50
(name . Alex Kost)(address . alezost@gmail.com)(address . 22587@debbugs.gnu.org)
8760vd7tzs.fsf@gnu.org
Alex Kost <alezost@gmail.com> skribis:
Toggle quote (10 lines)> Ludovic Courtès (2016-04-18 20:41 +0300) wrote:>>> It seems to me that this bug has no clear purpose, or too broad a>> purpose, or something.>>>> Could you retitle it, or close it, or fix it, whichever is appropriate?>> :-)>> Was it for me?
‘To whom it may concern’. :-)
Toggle quote (5 lines)> I think the main purpose of this report was to tell us that "edit"> name is confusing. So I would retitle it to "Rename 'guix edit' as it> is confusing". But I don't know how; can it be done by sending some> control message?
Yes, using the ‘retitle’ command, described somewhere athttp://debbugs.gnu.org/Developer.html.
However, I think (1) the title should describe the bug, not thesolution, and (2) ‘guix edit’ does what it says IMO, even if it canoccasionally stumble upon read-only files.
Ludo’.
A
A
Alex Kost wrote on 20 Apr 2016 09:20
(name . Ludovic Courtès)(address . ludo@gnu.org)(address . 22587@debbugs.gnu.org)
87ega07nl1.fsf@gmail.com
Ludovic Courtès (2016-04-19 13:50 +0300) wrote:
Toggle quote (22 lines)> Alex Kost <alezost@gmail.com> skribis:>>> Ludovic Courtès (2016-04-18 20:41 +0300) wrote:>>>>> It seems to me that this bug has no clear purpose, or too broad a>>> purpose, or something.>>>>>> Could you retitle it, or close it, or fix it, whichever is appropriate?>>> :-)>>>> Was it for me?>> ‘To whom it may concern’. :-)>>> I think the main purpose of this report was to tell us that "edit">> name is confusing. So I would retitle it to "Rename 'guix edit' as it>> is confusing". But I don't know how; can it be done by sending some>> control message?>> Yes, using the ‘retitle’ command, described somewhere at> <http://debbugs.gnu.org/Developer.html>.
Sorry, I don't see any mention of 'retitle' there, also I don't findretitle control message while using emacs-debbugs package.
Toggle quote (4 lines)> However, I think (1) the title should describe the bug, not the> solution, and (2) ‘guix edit’ does what it says IMO, even if it can> occasionally stumble upon read-only files.
OK, well I don't know what to do with it then. What about the followingtitle: «"guix edit" name may be confusing»?
-- Alex
L
L
Ludovic Courtès wrote on 20 Apr 2016 17:31
(name . Alex Kost)(address . alezost@gmail.com)(address . 22587@debbugs.gnu.org)
87shygthz8.fsf@gnu.org
Alex Kost <alezost@gmail.com> skribis:
Toggle quote (27 lines)> Ludovic Courtès (2016-04-19 13:50 +0300) wrote:>>> Alex Kost <alezost@gmail.com> skribis:>>>>> Ludovic Courtès (2016-04-18 20:41 +0300) wrote:>>>>>>> It seems to me that this bug has no clear purpose, or too broad a>>>> purpose, or something.>>>>>>>> Could you retitle it, or close it, or fix it, whichever is appropriate?>>>> :-)>>>>>> Was it for me?>>>> ‘To whom it may concern’. :-)>>>>> I think the main purpose of this report was to tell us that "edit">>> name is confusing. So I would retitle it to "Rename 'guix edit' as it>>> is confusing". But I don't know how; can it be done by sending some>>> control message?>>>> Yes, using the ‘retitle’ command, described somewhere at>> <http://debbugs.gnu.org/Developer.html>.>> Sorry, I don't see any mention of 'retitle' there, also I don't find> retitle control message while using emacs-debbugs package.
Toggle quote (7 lines)>> However, I think (1) the title should describe the bug, not the>> solution, and (2) ‘guix edit’ does what it says IMO, even if it can>> occasionally stumble upon read-only files.>> OK, well I don't know what to do with it then. What about the following> title: «"guix edit" name may be confusing»?
Perfect! :-)
Thanks,Ludo’.
A
A
Alex Kost wrote on 21 Apr 2016 12:18
"guix edit" name may be confusing
(address . control@debbugs.gnu.org)
87inzb9ses.fsf@gmail.com
retitle 22587 "guix edit" name may be confusing
A
A
Alex Kost wrote on 21 Apr 2016 12:40
Re: bug#22587: ‘guix edit’ & ‘M-x guix-edit' typo, rename, & mode change
(name . Ludovic Courtès)(address . ludo@gnu.org)(address . 22587@debbugs.gnu.org)
87eg9z9rek.fsf@gmail.com
Ludovic Courtès (2016-04-20 18:31 +0300) wrote:
Toggle quote (12 lines)> Alex Kost <alezost@gmail.com> skribis:>>> Ludovic Courtès (2016-04-19 13:50 +0300) wrote:>>>>> Yes, using the ‘retitle’ command, described somewhere at>>> <http://debbugs.gnu.org/Developer.html>.>>>> Sorry, I don't see any mention of 'retitle' there, also I don't find>> retitle control message while using emacs-debbugs package.>> Sorry, it’s at <http://debbugs.gnu.org/server-control.html>.
Thanks! And sorry for bothering, I should have found it myself. Ididn't realize that debbugs is such a featureful bug-tracker.
Toggle quote (9 lines)>>> However, I think (1) the title should describe the bug, not the>>> solution, and (2) ‘guix edit’ does what it says IMO, even if it can>>> occasionally stumble upon read-only files.>>>> OK, well I don't know what to do with it then. What about the following>> title: «"guix edit" name may be confusing»?>> Perfect! :-)
Done.
-- Alex
L
L
Ludovic Courtès wrote on 2 Jun 2016 21:40
(name . Alex Kost)(address . alezost@gmail.com)(address . 22587@debbugs.gnu.org)
87porz2xc4.fsf@gnu.org
Hi!
Alex Kost <alezost@gmail.com> skribis:
Toggle quote (2 lines)> Ludovic Courtès (2016-04-20 18:31 +0300) wrote:
[...]
Toggle quote (11 lines)>>>> However, I think (1) the title should describe the bug, not the>>>> solution, and (2) ‘guix edit’ does what it says IMO, even if it can>>>> occasionally stumble upon read-only files.>>>>>> OK, well I don't know what to do with it then. What about the following>>> title: «"guix edit" name may be confusing»?>>>> Perfect! :-)>> Done.
I’m rather inclined to close this bug as ‘wontfix’. Thoughts?
Ludo’.
A
A
Alex Kost wrote on 3 Jun 2016 21:04
(name . Ludovic Courtès)(address . ludo@gnu.org)(address . 22587@debbugs.gnu.org)
87r3ce9jrr.fsf@gmail.com
Ludovic Courtès (2016-06-02 22:40 +0300) wrote:
Toggle quote (19 lines)> Alex Kost <alezost@gmail.com> skribis:>>> Ludovic Courtès (2016-04-20 18:31 +0300) wrote:>> [...]>>>>>> However, I think (1) the title should describe the bug, not the>>>>> solution, and (2) ‘guix edit’ does what it says IMO, even if it can>>>>> occasionally stumble upon read-only files.>>>>>>>> OK, well I don't know what to do with it then. What about the following>>>> title: «"guix edit" name may be confusing»?>>>>>> Perfect! :-)>>>> Done.>> I’m rather inclined to close this bug as ‘wontfix’. Thoughts?
I would prefer it to be solved by renaming "guix edit" to "guix packagedefinition", but I think it will not be welcomed by most users andauthors, so 'wontfix' is fine by me.
-- Alex
L
L
Ludovic Courtès wrote on 4 Jun 2016 13:21
(name . Alex Kost)(address . alezost@gmail.com)(address . 22587@debbugs.gnu.org)
87shwt19o5.fsf@gnu.org
Alex Kost <alezost@gmail.com> skribis:
Toggle quote (25 lines)> Ludovic Courtès (2016-06-02 22:40 +0300) wrote:>>> Alex Kost <alezost@gmail.com> skribis:>>>>> Ludovic Courtès (2016-04-20 18:31 +0300) wrote:>>>> [...]>>>>>>>> However, I think (1) the title should describe the bug, not the>>>>>> solution, and (2) ‘guix edit’ does what it says IMO, even if it can>>>>>> occasionally stumble upon read-only files.>>>>>>>>>> OK, well I don't know what to do with it then. What about the following>>>>> title: «"guix edit" name may be confusing»?>>>>>>>> Perfect! :-)>>>>>> Done.>>>> I’m rather inclined to close this bug as ‘wontfix’. Thoughts?>> I would prefer it to be solved by renaming "guix edit" to "guix package> definition", but I think it will not be welcomed by most users and> authors, so 'wontfix' is fine by me.
I’m of course unsure what “most” users would think, but I find ‘guixpackage definition’ too wordy and probably too hard to find for anewcomer.
OK, marking it as wontfix, and we can always revisit the issue later ifpeople disagree!
Ludo’.
L
L
Ludovic Courtès wrote on 4 Jun 2016 13:22
control message for bug #22587
(address . control@debbugs.gnu.org)
87r3cd19nm.fsf@gnu.org
tags 22587 wontfixclose 22587
?
Your comment

This issue is archived.

To comment on this conversation send email to 22587@debbugs.gnu.org