[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: Ensuring we don't break user systems
From: |
Nils Gillmann |
Subject: |
Re: Ensuring we don't break user systems |
Date: |
Mon, 30 Jul 2018 21:16:34 +0000 |
We just have 2 different views here.
When Guix started, which was about 3 years before I joined, the model
was okay. Between 2015 and now the amount of breakage has been
extremely reduced due to discussions about more reasonable development
models. For a while now we have an informal rfc for bigger changes -
this is a result from "please don't do that without asking first"
because some of us got upset about assuming that all changes are okay.
I sympathize with your point of view - in production even a couple of
breaking commits are bad.
We have grown over the last years, but developing reasonable deployment
models which fit our group takes time.
I'm okay with defining a branching model and use it once we have the
tooling and infrastructure for it.
Dan Partelly transcribed 2.4K bytes:
> No I did not shown or proofed this affirmation. I believe it is sensible. It
> is a undeniable reality of software development that bugs are introduced
> during development. Having the update to the package manager (which in GuixSD
> is very central to the distro itself)
> result in a broken system "even if you can roll back” is a very bad thing. It
> is my opinion that the current model is both technically bad (exposing users
> to broken software , security bugs and so on) and socially bad ( having the
> package manager crap on itself due to bugs introduced in the development
> cycle may prompt a lot of people to look in to an alternative and creates bad
> publicity. It also results in end users wasting time, and time is the most
> precious comodity we have. I do not want the OS I use to waste my time. I
> want to install the software I need and work with and go on with my life and
> work ). Ironically, the problem is easily solved . DO not expose people to
> your devel branch where they will get first contact wiith guix bugs and guile
> bugs. The situation with GuixSD is somehow complicated by the fact that the
> package metadata is compiled as code, but yeah, a stable branch which is
> proven to be compilable and preferably regression tested is the first step
> IMO towards a better future with GuixSD. Treat is as a product which offers a
> rock solid platform for the users.
>
> And yes, in between 0.14 / 0.15 GuixSD was broken by guix pull a lot. That
> is a fact, unfortunately.
> > Dan Partelly <address@hidden> writes:
> >
> >> I pointed this out 4-5 weeks ago when trying GuixSD, on this very list.
> >> Thanks for reaffirming the idea In all honesty the current model is very
> >> badly broken, and you should not wait for 1.0. I had no other Linux distro
> >> break up faster than GuixSD. A stable branch is not enough by itself,
> >> (but is the mort important part) you need to ensure that all substitutes
> >> are built correctly, and atomically update all substitutes following a
> >> successful build of all packages.
> >>
> >> You should not inflict current model on your users , not even for an 0.1
> >
> > While this might apply to some software. I don't believe, and I don't
> > think you've shown that this reasoning is appropriate or useful to apply
> > to Guix.
> >
> > Saying that something doesn't work for you is fine, and can be helpful,
> > but such a unevidenced extreme view is unhelpful.
>
>
Re: Ensuring we don't break user systems, Julien Lepiller, 2018/07/29
Re: Ensuring we don't break user systems, Ludovic Courtès, 2018/07/29