From debbugs-submit-bounces@debbugs.gnu.org Mon Dec 30 07:03:41 2019 Received: (at 38529) by debbugs.gnu.org; 30 Dec 2019 12:03:41 +0000 Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1]:60550 helo=debbugs.gnu.org) by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.84_2) (envelope-from ) id 1iltlt-0002O3-Cy for submit@debbugs.gnu.org; Mon, 30 Dec 2019 07:03:41 -0500 Received: from mail-qk1-f196.google.com ([209.85.222.196]:41894) by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.84_2) (envelope-from ) id 1iltlp-0002Np-JH for 38529@debbugs.gnu.org; Mon, 30 Dec 2019 07:03:40 -0500 Received: by mail-qk1-f196.google.com with SMTP id x129so26082400qke.8 for <38529@debbugs.gnu.org>; Mon, 30 Dec 2019 04:03:37 -0800 (PST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20161025; h=mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date:message-id:subject:to :cc:content-transfer-encoding; bh=u+tyL1pWgttGoM/VS80EVPx6pZl7u0Ql630EWGelgyU=; b=M80j5GtWBGh3K4qR4MQtl1+KR/CU7jzNcj6xVetQO6PGKF4W2vIibGzHtdpMU+Dwqk Dg+FhaGwQZv2aEdaV5t0xgW60pMGIlzRn/6uBMffozFvbFfjJf5uCroI+FU4dMNKFd1E RIsE4EIJN+HsC9jDKtKfWLsy2rAT8eD8GnkBxz7mJifpjK3K4x/e3cpeQ1SZ4di2Lmox GDKP6eKu9wsirS4nt/6jDfv6yRE8sbSXvOrG3Z1ff6mY1m0+YGKVuuy7d7ttimMkVdqy utj5zzR0TqtXlQAfFAqM4UNhd4tb65OY7HxX2kNOzewD12b4Tg8GCCluXSJN84G6/hFA CfIg== X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date :message-id:subject:to:cc:content-transfer-encoding; bh=u+tyL1pWgttGoM/VS80EVPx6pZl7u0Ql630EWGelgyU=; b=dK3HTjsxN+Siu0g1gCyqEQseVezLUiCbXAxxkAmLCH6d5ykP1zMJFIDFT5SUhHbFCi QAK1L3ruIwisJvl4/QxZjp1zDZ1329eU4RuwpiYlaenwkfiHDvbRfDQaFjIwVJizkrJu 9NH+AkZTd7ePiZ7ob8oETDtVfNl44GQ0dKeuOn39LIcukGc64u/3BNCTPL7OXzCX5TMC O1BlKEJ1SWUC4NfPgaD4jV1nfkWYQhvx7NeOgf8DHzaIjYLSNFyYTJ0LPnPy0e9mhfml pW8yg2I/cD+q0gRP4P0bJITzpkrLuvetzbGSzJYPzsZVj9iWcz+2uXaaTzzMXIrgUf7q qCXA== X-Gm-Message-State: APjAAAWmuVj0B+XYZ1G3+pX4IEfROIUnnnHSHMq2CeivwjMHDYEtcHgj Rt79Shsgyx2t+ax4wgeLACtE6hvWq9R5XF0j00k= X-Google-Smtp-Source: APXvYqy4SFJSblwWUtdI97MQXTlmIYxZv6ZqPSZV1Hevxu/XmzpShGpLGKnkDEzaTEs3bipfyPp3pEN46ZvTqXn4cvU= X-Received: by 2002:a05:620a:1592:: with SMTP id d18mr53878195qkk.80.1577707412084; Mon, 30 Dec 2019 04:03:32 -0800 (PST) MIME-Version: 1.0 References: <87eexeu8mo.fsf@ambrevar.xyz> <87k16vdise.fsf@gnu.org> <87zhfp2w11.fsf@web.de> <871rt03shq.fsf@web.de> <87zhfn3hgj.fsf@web.de> <87tv5upttv.fsf@elephly.net> <87o8w1mxjt.fsf@gnu.org> <87blrqp2pp.fsf@euandre.org> <878smu85kw.fsf@gnu.org> In-Reply-To: <878smu85kw.fsf@gnu.org> From: zimoun Date: Mon, 30 Dec 2019 13:03:19 +0100 Message-ID: Subject: Re: bug#38529: Make --ad-hoc the default for guix environment proposed deprecation mechanism To: =?UTF-8?Q?Ludovic_Court=C3=A8s?= Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable X-Spam-Score: 0.0 (/) X-Debbugs-Envelope-To: 38529 Cc: EuAndreh , GNU Guix maintainers , 38529@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: -1.0 (-) Hi Ludo, On Mon, 30 Dec 2019 at 11:35, Ludovic Court=C3=A8s wrote: > > Wouldn't having a new name for the new behaviour avoid breakage in this > > situation? > > Yes, that=E2=80=99s correct (that=E2=80=99s also one of the suggestions K= onrad made). Is this statement acted? Is it the consensus by all the maintainers? And I am not clear about what will happens for "guix environment"? Deprecate for sure. But after X time: removed or frozen? Removing the command "guix environment" is against the backward compatibility argument because all the current documentation/scripts using it will not work anymore. Other said, if the documentation/scripts cannot be updated as it was said -- in favor for strong backward compatibility -- then the user will be surprised that what worked does not anymore because the command does not exist anymore. Therefore, if Guix goes the backward compatibility route, then the "guix environment" should be frozen until the version 2.0 and so only removed when the 2.0 will be released. Or I misunderstand the arguments in favor of the backward compatibility. As Arne described the process (bottom of [1]), "guix environment" will become a kind-of alias of "guix shell/". Right? > We could take that route. What would we call it, though? I don=E2=80=99= t like > =E2=80=9Cguix shell=E2=80=9D because it doesn=E2=80=99t quite reflect wha= t the command is > about. No good idea, though. Argh! Naming is hard. Something that reflects what the command is about: "guix environment"? (joke!! ;-)) Why do you say that "guix shell" does not reflect what the command is about= ? Because the command spawns a new shell with options (expanding it, isolating it, etc.) Well, because we do not seem having good idea for a new name, maybe if we argument why we collectively find that name or this name is bad or good, one of us will find the good name. Currently, "guix shell" seems the better option. All the best, simon