From debbugs-submit-bounces@debbugs.gnu.org Mon Apr 18 04:37:57 2016 Received: (at 22587) by debbugs.gnu.org; 18 Apr 2016 08:37:57 +0000 Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1]:38894 helo=debbugs.gnu.org) by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.84_2) (envelope-from ) id 1as4gu-000304-SC for submit@debbugs.gnu.org; Mon, 18 Apr 2016 04:37:57 -0400 Received: from mail-lf0-f68.google.com ([209.85.215.68]:32824) by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.84_2) (envelope-from ) id 1as4gt-0002zs-0L for 22587@debbugs.gnu.org; Mon, 18 Apr 2016 04:37:55 -0400 Received: by mail-lf0-f68.google.com with SMTP id p64so25245351lfg.0 for <22587@debbugs.gnu.org>; Mon, 18 Apr 2016 01:37:54 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=from:to:cc:subject:references:date:in-reply-to:message-id :user-agent:mime-version:content-transfer-encoding; bh=nIeeuEyBZMcuPzV5zXe/J515JqKHqPW2+sJxk2ecbRw=; b=ucnwFVBcUXto6UPvjKMMeuk/1/QKpxjeqA4KUCzarNutnihTQ9i6qwCjPGb4eHP0d3 PRSBHxnQOL8IEi5gQA6MjZAWER51GcfCHOYt5rftxJbztUf6WDcZTyfel1AcRpUhc6LI cLaU6yEfMw/BMH7f8+U2u+k3LNWaBzpAswUtncFOoa/wjKjAzmxKcBr5k2zkSMu/R/PJ VgQyHTLZ9E+36vXwIQo01uP8k8RDixsSdTaN51abAit8HkkOKmSIe9O8r2JDOzR11MPr hW/x303GIfrCH6mko51id3TmxrjomuXtUqzqXxo9O2aDZHN2hgNonrZfeqStW5xDXxnL u+vA== X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20130820; h=x-gm-message-state:from:to:cc:subject:references:date:in-reply-to :message-id:user-agent:mime-version:content-transfer-encoding; bh=nIeeuEyBZMcuPzV5zXe/J515JqKHqPW2+sJxk2ecbRw=; b=SQn/ZuDv82aVTFURf6wwtJrz6GKbBhF5bSreIaNXuCTpomIg5Fi1Aus9z4IJIFakZA uURiYPpbFWaS67c72SbzO55Sc4TBSPs3VTtC6pk9+fRMFEyNn7R8g0iRF8T83oChx8tP dlKNUTPjPqd83KXi2XoeR0cngYo+JrKZxAXWJTbTwJXfVrhUUZdE8RXRMfFiiDMUGyyE 7OAo9MSATAKlvLtrgbBzI2MvMD5zSPn6/1FtGEoBUb2yY3wd8hiaWsafmWaeci8lPs7c c3mjBrcWqmnVTREcvGOPMXaKaHIajyDG8jrM8GoH2rBp/+MeWJuR8RzGRzBka/qtfmrK KixQ== X-Gm-Message-State: AOPr4FUBWPbgz4GF3hnbuDDkuAdpsBYHnqeD3EdXLVasMsrCOk+UCCkqxsT/ON/79AZ5zQ== X-Received: by 10.25.196.23 with SMTP id u23mr14206351lff.129.1460968669254; Mon, 18 Apr 2016 01:37:49 -0700 (PDT) Received: from leviafan ([217.107.192.146]) by smtp.gmail.com with ESMTPSA id h2sm3127337lbd.42.2016.04.18.01.37.48 (version=TLS1_2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 bits=128/128); Mon, 18 Apr 2016 01:37:48 -0700 (PDT) From: Alex Kost To: myglc2 Subject: Re: bug#22587: =?utf-8?B?4oCYZ3VpeCBlZGl04oCZ?= & =?utf-8?Q?=E2=80=98M-x?= guix-edit' typo, rename, & mode change References: <8737t4jt1j.fsf@gmail.com> <87oabrr460.fsf@gmail.com> <87twlj6op5.fsf@gmail.com> Date: Mon, 18 Apr 2016 11:37:48 +0300 In-Reply-To: <87twlj6op5.fsf@gmail.com> (myglc2@gmail.com's message of "Mon, 08 Feb 2016 13:29:10 -0500") Message-ID: <878u0bia77.fsf@gmail.com> User-Agent: Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13) Emacs/24.5 (gnu/linux) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable X-Spam-Score: -0.7 (/) X-Debbugs-Envelope-To: 22587 Cc: 22587@debbugs.gnu.org X-BeenThere: debbugs-submit@debbugs.gnu.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.18 Precedence: list List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Errors-To: debbugs-submit-bounces@debbugs.gnu.org Sender: "Debbugs-submit" X-Spam-Score: -0.7 (/) myglc2 (2016-02-08 21:29 +0300) wrote: > Alex Kost writes: > >> myglc2 (2016-02-07 21:04 +0300) wrote: >> >>> From guix INFO: >>> >>> 6.2 Invoking =E2=80=98guix edit=E2=80=99 >>> [...] >>> launches the program specified in the =E2=80=98VISUAL=E2=80=99 or in th= e =E2=80=98EDITOR=E2=80=99 >>> 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 :-( >>> 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 person=C2=B9 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=E2=80=A6, 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 suggestion=C2=B2), 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", not just "guix definition", as in future there may appear a way to "edit" other things. For example, I've sent a patchset=C2=B3 to go to license definitions in Emacs. So analogously we could have "guix license definition" (along with "guix license list" and similar). 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. =C2=B9 https://gnunet.org/bot/log/guix/2016-03-07#T948796 =C2=B2 http://lists.gnu.org/archive/html/guix-devel/2015-08/msg00044.html =C2=B3 http://lists.gnu.org/archive/html/guix-devel/2016-04/msg00721.html --=20 Alex