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 “stable” branch in the sense of Debian stable, but that’s another story.) > I agree with both of you that a 'stable' branch of Guix would be > tremendously useful. I've often wanted it myself, and I still do. > > My point is that I want to keep our APIs internal and unfrozen for the > same reason that Linux, the kernel project, does. Linux refuses to > support out-of-tree drivers and modules, and thereby retains its freedom > to change their internal APIs. Often they change how things work > internally and this entails doing massive find-replace on every driver > in the tree. This has been a crucially important factor in their > long-term success. I had this example in mind too: the kernel technically supports out-of-tree modules, but kernel developers have always resisted pressure to freeze APIs. Because this policy has been stated upfront very clearly and has remained unchanged, out-of-tree module developers know that that the compatibility burden is on them. There’s flexibility, along with a strong incentive to get things in the mainline kernel. This is the outcome I’d like to achieve: give users some welcome flexibility, but make it clear that it’s best-effort. Ludo’.