Hugo Buddelmeijer <[email protected]> skribis: > Firstly, you're side-stepping the main point of this thread, that it > will be difficult to amend the GCD.
I’m not sidestepping anything, but I’m not sure whether I agree with this assertion. One one hand, it’s clear that probably few people are willing and able to put as much energy and time as I did trying to build consensus on this one. Building consensus is hard, because you need to make compromises: in its current state, this GCD is not what I was hoping for, it has literally zero lines in common with my initial proposal, but I think it is much better at reflecting where we are. Yet, I don’t see why amending this GCD would be harder. On the contrary, I think it can only be easier, because, as I wrote, we’ll have more insight into all this by the time there’s enough momentum to make a change. I don’t have a crystal ball though, and time will tell whether I was right or wrong, provided we accept GCD 008 to begin with. [...] > The part about better tooling was only an example about why we don't > have the luxury to permit ourselves a commitment that goes much > further than strictly necessary. You keep repeating that, and I really believe that this is untrue—we’ve discussed it already. >> This is a model we rejected early on in Guix (see commit >> 154f1f0937754fafac0c6288dd458b66b332e6bb) in favor of collaborative >> maintenance, now incarnated as teams. > > I don't know where to find that commit, it seems not to be in Guix, > could you please give me a pointer? It’s in Guix. > Thanks. I'm hoping for something that shows how far the packages are > outdated; whether that gap grows or shrinks. > > Because if the gap shrinks, then we can continue on our current path, > but if the gap grows, then we need to change something. I'll try to > create something. The gap will not shrink magically by itself; we’ll have to roll up our sleeves, write a bot, experiment, etc.—just like others did when writing importers/updaters, ‘guix style’, and the likes. That’s the whole point of commitment #3. Thanks, Ludo’.
