Subject: Re: bug#22629: Channels not needed for a stable branch

From: Mark H Weaver <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 30 Aug 2018 02:42:06 -0400

Konrad Hinsen <[email-masked]> writes:

>> I also agree with you that we don’t need channels for providing a stable
>> branch.  The biggest obstacle to providing a stable branch is not
>> technical, but it requires people maintaining it.
>
> Look at this from the opposite end: if you were interested in
> maintaining a stable software distribution, would you choose a quickly
> evolving package manager such as Guix as the basis? I'd say no, and I am
> speaking from experience because I did actually maintain stable software
> installations for a couple of years. You want to concentrate on critical
> bug fixes and avoid anything else that could perturb the stability of
> your system.

I'm not sure what you're trying to argue above.  To me, it looks like an
argument in favor of my position, namely that a stable version of Guix
should include _all_ of Guix, not just the packages.

If you want to maintain a stable distribution, why would you want to
combine stable package descriptions with quickly evolving infrastructure
that makes up the rest of Guix?

If you want stability, wouldn't it be better to keep a stable branch of
_all_ of Guix, so that both the package descriptions _and_ the
infrastructure upon which those packages depend are kept stable?

This is exactly what a 'stable' branch in a git repository would
provide, and moreover "guix pull" already has everything that's needed
to support this.  All that's needed are people to maintain such a
branch.

If we again compare this to Linux (the kernel project) and their refusal
to support out-of-tree drivers: I'm arguing in favor of the Linux
approach, where stable kernels are based on git branches that include a
_all_ of Linux.  Your position, transposed to Linux, would seem to be in
favor of third-parties supporting stable drivers, which would then be
combined with the latest version of the rest of the kernel.

Am I misunderstanding your argument?  Can you please clarify?

       Mark