From debbugs-submit-bounces@debbugs.gnu.org Fri Feb 24 13:21:09 2017 Received: (at 22629) by debbugs.gnu.org; 24 Feb 2017 18:21:09 +0000 Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1]:54914 helo=debbugs.gnu.org) by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.84_2) (envelope-from ) id 1chKUO-0000ir-Rk for submit@debbugs.gnu.org; Fri, 24 Feb 2017 13:21:09 -0500 Received: from out4-smtp.messagingengine.com ([66.111.4.28]:51831) by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.84_2) (envelope-from ) id 1chKUM-0000ii-Fx for 22629@debbugs.gnu.org; Fri, 24 Feb 2017 13:21:07 -0500 Received: from compute4.internal (compute4.nyi.internal [10.202.2.44]) by mailout.nyi.internal (Postfix) with ESMTP id E9A5E209F0; Fri, 24 Feb 2017 13:21:05 -0500 (EST) Received: from frontend2 ([10.202.2.161]) by compute4.internal (MEProxy); Fri, 24 Feb 2017 13:21:05 -0500 DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha1; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=famulari.name; h= cc:content-type:date:from:in-reply-to:message-id:mime-version :references:subject:to:x-me-sender:x-me-sender:x-sasl-enc :x-sasl-enc; s=mesmtp; bh=JxtANXfZhufpyyrcFUaAertGhWM=; b=L6Cnhk uOBrqCQcGud7MQNZvoKUoiLI4AbPvTU0CJXHCcxUp8CyLRMI9ELXR0fI0aIaBGGJ P6QB20hyaWQW7Y3xc5sd6AxjC95oZw4jI8QKS7Xkg1L7uxbfKVX4OagQomEJDL/a NvzPpUU/j1wP8keYEoSGpKAPcpjFAg7V9tkUg= DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha1; c=relaxed/relaxed; d= messagingengine.com; h=cc:content-type:date:from:in-reply-to :message-id:mime-version:references:subject:to:x-me-sender :x-me-sender:x-sasl-enc:x-sasl-enc; s=smtpout; bh=JxtANXfZhufpyy rcFUaAertGhWM=; b=Zskrjvg2xOJPGp4BlihUdLKw82wJa+XQJhtw/kSE857hAC +GhiRdbvDESjWFj7Jj4bSwSdJsJPmrfSqDrSSXhI5AvIw8FdjfbERAsvllMbNxel aRHcO6qXkRB1iQTE9x638ST3vmijql1sf4XR78GjLVllwlnc3yGdzlRnU9JXM= X-ME-Sender: X-Sasl-enc: QVUNYVk4dUcU+ZfBtAxp98Uy+yoMg60iPHE8i7vey4yl 1487960465 Received: from localhost (c-73-188-17-148.hsd1.pa.comcast.net [73.188.17.148]) by mail.messagingengine.com (Postfix) with ESMTPA id A0DEB24660; Fri, 24 Feb 2017 13:21:05 -0500 (EST) Date: Fri, 24 Feb 2017 13:21:01 -0500 From: Leo Famulari To: Pjotr Prins Subject: Re: bug#22629: Towards a new 'guix pull' Message-ID: <20170224182101.GA9615@jasmine> References: <87vb5vsffd.fsf@gnu.org> <20170222075706.GA21158@mail.thebird.nl> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/signed; micalg=pgp-sha256; protocol="application/pgp-signature"; boundary="T4sUOijqQbZv57TR" Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20170222075706.GA21158@mail.thebird.nl> User-Agent: Mutt/1.7.2 (2016-11-26) X-Spam-Score: -0.7 (/) X-Debbugs-Envelope-To: 22629 Cc: Ludovic =?iso-8859-1?Q?Court=E8s?= , 22629@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 (/) --T4sUOijqQbZv57TR Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable On Wed, Feb 22, 2017 at 07:57:06AM +0000, Pjotr Prins wrote: > To keep things simple I propose a channel simply reflects a fixed > version of a git tree of a Guix package list. I.e., the exact *state* > of the combined list of packages is what we support in a channel. The > git checkout can be stored in something like You shared *a lot* of ideas following this paragraph, but I think that =66rom here we can start thinking about how to incrementally evolve from the current `guix pull` to something better. Currently, you can `guix pull` any commit of GNU Guix with `guix pull --url` [0]. This feature depends on the Git server implementation's HTTP interface, but I bet it's a common feature, and it can already be used with other Git repositories besides our Savannah repo. This achieves the goal of channels, "easy specialization of deployments". Well, "easy" is a matter of degrees ;) I was thinking we could start by keeping `guix pull` the same from the user's point of view, but change it to support Git in addition to downloading a tarball. We already have code for this in (guix git-download) which uses the Git command-line tool. [1] The next step would be to keep some metadata about which channel the last pull came from, so that subsequent pulls would point to it. What do people think? I haven't wrapped my head around all the proposed changes. I think it will be best to keep the goal of "easy specialization of deployments" in mind and work towards it incrementally. [0] https://git.savannah.gnu.org/cgit/guix.git/commit/?id=3D8a9cffb202414b20081= 910115ba76402924bdcdd [1] In the long run, we should ditch the Git CLI and use something like guile-git: https://gitlab.com/amirouche/guile-git --T4sUOijqQbZv57TR Content-Type: application/pgp-signature; name="signature.asc" -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- iQIzBAABCAAdFiEEsFFZSPHn08G5gDigJkb6MLrKfwgFAliweYkACgkQJkb6MLrK fwjrOBAA0BdkuDnJ0aD/9bHmV2F/w2jcLyjFQvJfne2c9D10SOndcvGMUpbyPFCy TVYmlbTjwwS+U48721VtgQXbpWdKdddwk6g7akvZMitjcZ/SANaPOKOCg94Ez3f3 W8ap8dJRXMgWaF6sYNtD5dk0xA4B1PUEB3fySuO/grEtGCcfnP1L5e/SaRss2BGV sqgxwvMSvY3lwWlVXqGwx/3zS2scn8J/5GubcV0Yu2/SaUcEKuVgd92y1W/iJj9U MFRqjA0bHp+2pVLOD0QNFbTV+B9ChAa+Xo29AkRo43eCcL4x61S4R9n09c4jZPQv cx2PizHxld5MKFADYAhba9x1PThkdhVPk687gHiLfENSd5eUdU5P/5eJH4mxMrL0 g3VOK2YOb85VdsPJmdtLO3hvXG2DqBKs8Gob7HzV0fekKnWgvDeiJaAFts1PR6ga GGYdyln/TmqHIqMgdQuulrlCrmYk0uvzz5UW8WxQ0W7j6EfjlppnP0kJtNGYynI0 enPB2OcMohuYnHEXmB9p4QxtgoP3CL66VvPDTFyAgtekUBqA1dcicQbbJ86sIwTi 0FiMEch+DVGH5z98H9CBT8DzFa4b/FSomSZ1jGA8uNp5zHuGHe+R8JQch1j2M+nS 5UvYVLnKWGozxRxdvu7dYYx7L6uPuhnF0mL6xkd6fabMYj9kjRc= =TqJj -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --T4sUOijqQbZv57TR--