Re: Merging wip-guix-home to master

[Andrew Tropin]

On 2021-09-23 22:45, Ludovic Courtès wrote:

> Hi,
>
> Andrew Tropin <andrew@trop.in> skribis:
>
>> I'm about a week on wip-guix-home branch completely and Guix Home works
>> fine.  There are no any major issues on rde-devel and guix-devel mailing
>> lists and it seems that branch is ready to be merged.
>
> Yay!  I’d like to take another look (I know I’ve been terribly MIA,
> apologies!), and I hope other folks familiar with Guix System can
> comment as well.

Sure, let's wait for reviews/comments until next Thursday.

>
>> There is a discussion[fn:2] on moving home services to (gnu services
>> ...)  modules, which is likely to happen, but it's possible to do the
>> migration relatively painless by re-exporting necessary symbols in
>> (gnu home-services ...) at first and removing them completely later.
>
> I know it can be annoying to existing Guix Home users, but I’d prefer
> not to carry pre-merge baggage; that is, we’d just rename and not
> provide those modules under their former names at all.
>

Yep, it is very likely that it will be annoying, but I think it's
doable.  It should be a relatively simple migration for users.

>> Another important part of the work related to Guix Home project is
>> covering related modules and cli with tests, but it can be done in
>> parallel and is not a blocker for merging.
>
> Do you have ideas of a possible testing strategy?

Yep, I think we can do the same thing to tests/guix-system.sh, check
that `guix home build` provides desired results on simple configurations
and `guix home search` shows correct results on different input strings.

>
> We should be able to test at least the CLI, either arranging to avoid
> large builds (as in tests/guix-build.sh) or talking to the “real”
> guix-daemon (as in tests/guix-pack-relocatable.sh) if we’re going to
> need packages.
>
> It’d be great to have this part ready soonish.

I hope to work on it next week.

>
> The way I see it, in 1.4 (2.0?), we’d mark Guix Home as a “technology
> preview” in the manual with a prominent note.  That will allow us to get
> feedback from new users and to fine-tune code correspondingly, and
> that’ll make it clear to users that things are still subject to change.

Marked it as a subject to change in Home Configuration section of the
manual, patch in the reply to Oleg.

>
> Thoughts?
>
> Thanks,
> Ludo’.

signature.asc
Description: PGP signature