GNU bug report logs - #22587
"guix edit" name may be confusing

Previous Next

Full log

Message #61 received at 22587 <at> debbugs.gnu.org (full text, mbox):

From: ludo <at> gnu.org (Ludovic Courtès)
To: Alex Kost <alezost <at> gmail.com>
Cc: 22587 <at> debbugs.gnu.org
Subject: Re: bug#22587: ‘guix edit’ &
 ‘M-x guix-edit' typo, rename, & mode change
Date: Sat, 04 Jun 2016 13:21:46 +0200

Alex Kost <alezost <at> gmail.com> skribis:

> Ludovic Courtès (2016-06-02 22:40 +0300) wrote:
>
>> Alex Kost <alezost <at> gmail.com> skribis:
>>
>>> Ludovic Courtès (2016-04-20 18:31 +0300) wrote:
>>
>> [...]
>>
>>>>>> However, I think (1) the title should describe the bug, not the
>>>>>> solution, and (2) ‘guix edit’ does what it says IMO, even if it can
>>>>>> occasionally stumble upon read-only files.
>>>>>
>>>>> OK, well I don't know what to do with it then.  What about the following
>>>>> title: «"guix edit" name may be confusing»?
>>>>
>>>> Perfect! :-)
>>>
>>> Done.
>>
>> I’m rather inclined to close this bug as ‘wontfix’.  Thoughts?
>
> I would prefer it to be solved by renaming "guix edit" to "guix package
> definition", but I think it will not be welcomed by most users and
> authors, so 'wontfix' is fine by me.

I’m of course unsure what “most” users would think, but I find ‘guix
package definition’ too wordy and probably too hard to find for a
newcomer.

OK, marking it as wontfix, and we can always revisit the issue later if
people disagree!

Ludo’.

Previous Next

GNU bug tracking system
Copyright (C) 1999 Darren O. Benham, 1997,2003 nCipher Corporation Ltd, 1994-97 Ian Jackson.