Re: We need an RFC procedure [Re: Services can now have a default value]

[Leo Famulari]

On Mon, May 22, 2017 at 11:23:23PM +0200, Ricardo Wurmus wrote:
> Ludovic Courtès <address@hidden> writes:
> > What would be stable in the “stable branch”, packages or Guix?  :-)
> >
> > A branch where Guix itself is stable would be nice, though it would need
> > careful merging from master regularly.
> 
> This would make sense.  It would require some restraint in moving
> packages to different modules or breaking some underlying package
> features, which would cause ABI breakage.
> 
> I do think it would be possible, though.

It's definitely possible, but I'd like to see it proposed in more detail
by the group that will maintain it. It's not okay to start a "stable
branch" unless it will be properly supported.

> 
> > A branch where packages are stable (à la Debian stable) would be too
> > much work (I’m even skeptical it makes any sense given that many
> > declared and undeclared security vulnerabilities get patched everytime a
> > piece of software is released…).
> 
> Yeah, that wouldn’t make sense.  It’s hard enough to deal with security
> issues in current software in a timely fashion.

+1

Anyone who really needs this has a business use case that can support a
private fork, in my opinion.

signature.asc
Description: PGP signature