Hi Ricardo,
> I also agree with you that we don’t need channels for providing a stable
> branch. The biggest obstacle to providing a stable branch is not
> technical, but it requires people maintaining it.
Look at this from the opposite end: if you were interested in
maintaining a stable softwar
Hi Mark,
> I'd like to say again that I have grave concerns that this could be the
> death-knell for long-term innovation in Guix. It's likely that whenever
> a change is proposed that will break these third-party channels, there
> will be resistance, and efforts to preserve backward compatibil
Hi,
Alex Sassmannshausen writes:
> My primary interest in channels at the moment comes from believing that
> having a "stable" channel would be incredibly useful to increase
> adoption rate of Guix. And for me.
Konrad Hinsen writes:
> Look at the wider Linux world: there are people who want to
