On Sun, 3 May 2026 11:55:00 +0200 Andreas Enge <[email protected]> wrote:
> Hello, Hi, > It would be nice if you could participate either by sending an email > to guix-devel, or by replying on the pull request at > https://codeberg.org/guix/guix-consensus-documents/pulls/12 > with one of three sentences, quoted from GCD 001: > - “I support”, meaning that one supports the proposal; > - “I accept”, meaning that one consents to the implementation of the > proposal; > - “I disapprove”, meaning that one opposes the implementation of the > proposal. A team member sending this reply should have made > constructive comments during the discussion period." > The deadline is > Monday, May 4, 23:59 AOE (anywhere on earth) > (tomorrow, more or less, depending on your time zone). Thanks a lot for the reminder. The problem here is that I would like to disapprove for now but I can't as I missed the discussion period. The issue I have is that the "Motivation" section is framed in a way that accepts breakage without saying that it is also a choice to see it as inevitable. Personally I would have preferred to have taken into account the option of not breaking what already works and/or requiring to fix what was broken by commits. This would also bring in a lot of questions, and it's not necessarily up to a GCD to decide how to deal them as that can also be done in a case-by-case basis (or later) but I think it is important to mention that at least to not make people think that because this GCD passed, we necessarily have to accept breakage and that it can be fine to not care about breaking other people's packages at all and hope that if there is any breakage it's fine (and better) if it is not detected during the review. Note that I do understand that not breaking packages also have costs, and that not everybody has the same opinion on that but in one way or another I think that, in the long run, we would need to have some discussions about that at least to start understanding what options could make sense for Guix. Apart from the "Motivation" issue, I've not enough time to think about the in details but I think it does make sense.
pgpxTK16otphf.pgp
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
