Re: sorted inputs [was: Guix-devel Digest, Vol 37, Issue 133]

[Eric Bavier]

On Thu, 21 Jul 2016 15:42:52 +0200
David Craven <address@hidden> wrote:

> > I don't think this needs to be a thing.  While I personally added the
> > code in the cpan importer to sort inputs by name, I recognize that
> > there are also valid reasons to not do that in some packages.  E.g.
> > grouping a set of inputs that are all related to or required for some
> > aspect of a package's functionality, etc.  
> 
> 1. A lint warning is just that a warning. I think in most cases there
> is no reason
> not sort them alphabetically.

I'd like 'guix lint' to be useful to everyone, including first-time
contributors.  In that context, we can't have it start printing warnings
that we don't feel are legitimate issues, causing people to start
second-guessing and revisiting their contribution.  

One of the original motivators behind 'guix lint' was to catch issues
commonly encountered during patch review.  I've never seen a reviewer
on this list turn back a patch because the inputs were not sorted.

> 2. The ordering may seem logical to the person who wrote the package 
> initially,
> but then the next person comes along and modifies it. Over time we get a mess
> and whatever structure the initial author had in mind has disappeared.

As David mentioned, with proper source comments this shouldn't be an
issue.

`~Eric