Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/2] guix: packages: Document 'computed-origin-method'.

From: zimoun <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 29 Sep 2021 22:15:02 +0200

Hi Liliana,

On Wed, 29 Sep 2021 at 21:10, Liliana Marie Prikler <[email-masked]> wrote:

>                                                               I could
> roll my own channel with the exact same computed-origin-method
> copypasta'd once more and it wouldn't be detected, though that's
> probably off-topic.[1]

If it is in your own channel, then it will not be part of the file
https://guix.gnu.org/sources.json.

>From my understanding, you are arguing about corner cases that does not
happen now.  And if it happens in the near future, we will fix it,
depending on what will really happen in this very future. ;-)

> I was a little confused when I read factorize from Ludo or refactorize
> from you.  I know this technique under the name "refactoring".

Indeed.  Maybe a false-friend from French. :-)

>> *refactorize: I think (guix packages) is better because it defines

[...]

>> half-mentioned this rationale.
>
> To that I would counter, that (guix packages) only defines package and

[...]

> issue referencing the GNU namespace to get to it.

I hear your argument.  Well, I will not discuss it.  Raise as an answer
to Ludo, maybe.

>> To be honest, I thought that this tiny improvement of the SWH
>> coverage would have been much more easier and that that trivial task
>> would not have taken more than 15 days with lengthy discussions. :-)
>
> To be honest, part of the lengthy discussion was me being confused
> about your intent – in multiple ways.  If you wanted a "quick and dirty
> fix" you could have went with checking those two modules explicitly on
> the guix-artwork side and it would have had a fairly small impact.
> Reading this patch first and the discussion second, I had assumed your
> intent was rather to formalize a method that had hitherto only been
> used informally and the move to the guix namespace amplifies that imo.

The cover letter [1] says: «This patch follows the discussion from [0].»
where [0] points to the Mark’s approval as an answer to a patch which
applies to website/apps/packages/builder.scm.

Then the cover letter [1] says: «In short, it simplifies the code
generating the file 'sources.json' used by Software Heritage to ingest
all the tarballs.»

1: <http://issues.guix.gnu.org/50620#0>

I am sorry if this cover letter was not enough explicit about my intent.
>From my point of view, the aim of this cover letter was to invite to
read first the discussion and second read the patch.  My bad if this aim
had been missed.  I apologize for the confusion.

Being optimistic, this discussion leads to some concerns about this
’computed-origin-method’ and ideas for improving.  IMHO, it is worth to
open another issue providing the wish of multi-origin packages and
reference to this.  WDYT?

All the best,
simon