Subject: Re: [PATCH v6 05/41] guix: node-build-system: Add 'delete-dependencies' helper function.

From: Liliana Marie Prikler <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 05 Jan 2022 22:04:03 +0100

Hi,

Am Mittwoch, dem 05.01.2022 um 14:08 -0500 schrieb Philip McGrath:
> I will admit that I am more than a little frustrated that, having put
> aside my own reservations and implemented the compromise proposal it 
> seemed everyone could live with, it now seems that the consensus was
> in fact illusory. Moreover, I still do not understand what specific
> changes I could send in a v8 that would get this patch series to a
> state where everyone would agree it could be applied.
To be honest, I should do part of my job as well here and apply some of
my own suggestions as I push if you deem them reasonable.  I think
that'd get us to consensus in one iteration.

> 
> I don't know what to make of this comment, and I especially don't 
> understand what the notorious left-pad incident has to do with my
> views.  Aside from its inflammatory nature, I think left-pad is a
> confusing way to make a point because many people have tried to make
> it "stand for" many different, perhaps even mutually contradictory,
> conclusions.
Point taken, I'll try to dedent my Javascript jokes.

> In case it helps at all to state my position more fully: with or
> without Guix, I think a major purpose, perhaps even the primary
> purpose, of _any_ build system is to relieve users (including
> ourselves) of the cognitive burden of lower-level details. Build
> systems are a means of abstraction and encapsulation.
> 
> [...]
I agree with you that abstractions ought to help, but we do have some
disagreements about the amount by which certain abstractions help. 
Those are gut feeling value judgements, they're not all entirely
rational.

> I hope this is just a matter of some nuance in the connotation of 
> the word "gratuitous" not coming across properly, but I would
> appreciate the same consideration being extended to my perspective.
> 
> Almost tautologically, I don't think adding '#:absent-dependencies' 
> would be gratuitous, or I wouldn't have proposed it.
Generally, keywords are reserved for a few special operations.  I don't
currently have the time to write them all up, but suffice it to say I
don't believe the way #:absent-dependencies would be used fits into any
of those.  I can write that up in a later message if you feel it's
imporant enough.

> From my perspective, though, the substance of these patches has been
> ready to go for something like six weeks now, and the few
> enhancements since then could easily have been small follow-on
> patches. I would consider it very regrettable if this patch series
> were to continue to be blocked by stylistic considerations 
> in the implementation of unexported helper functions.
That's not at all my intention.  I'll write up a checklist as a follow-
up.  We can go over these shortly and I'll have v6 with minor
adjustments land hopefully soon (if it can't be done tomorrow I'll
shoot for Sunday).  Would that be acceptable?