Subject: Re: [PATCH (WIP) v1.5 0/4] Add 'guix fork'.

From: Maxim Cournoyer <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 06 Feb 2025 13:46:13 +0900

Hi 45mg,

45mg <[email-masked]> writes:

> Hi all,
>
> First of all, thanks to Maxim for the patch review! There are a lot of
> things that I'll need to address in there. And thanks to everyone else
> who's replied here. It's encouraging to see that people are paying
> attention to my work; I was worried there wouldn't be enough people who
> care about this issue.

[...]

> So, rather than doing a typical inline reply to each message in this
> thread, I'm going to try to list out all the feedback I've gotten, and
> everything that's pending. Then I'll talk about how I plan to work on
> it. Feel free to comment on anything here.

Before you go further, I'd propose you to explore whether the
GUIX_EXTENSIONS_PATH mechanism could work for your new command.  If it
does, then that's even nicer, as I think in general it'd be preferable
for something as particular as 'guix fork' to not be advertised as a top
level guix command.  A note could be added to the manual pointing to
this extension, perhaps in a subsection of the section documenting
channels, for the rarer cases where this is useful/necessary.

We'd also need to document the GUIX_EXTENSIONS_PATH environment
variable, and some usage guidance (I've never used an extension myself).

-- 
Thanks,
Maxim