On Thu, 21 Jul 2016 15:42:52 +0200 David Craven <da...@craven.ch> 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