Subject: Re: bug#20137: number of generation doesn't always rise monotonically

From: [email-masked] (Ludovic Courtès)
Date: Mon, 23 Mar 2015 10:13:13 +0100

Tomáš Čech <[email-masked]> skribis:

>>Perhaps we can eventually move to an actual tree structure where the
>>nodes can be named whatever.  Until now I thought that's how generations
>>work, and are just named after integers for identification purposes.

[...]

>>I’m concerned that this would add both code and user interface
>>complexity for mostly hypothetical use cases.  WDYT?
>
> Yes, it would surely add some more code and would be demanding for
> creating good visual represantation for users, but it could also be
> much closer to behavior user would expect. And that is something which
> makes tools to be natural to use.

I’m not sure.  My guess is that an undo-style tree would turn out to be
less obvious or more difficult to use.

Currently, understanding what’s going on with M-x guix-generations or
--list-generations and similar is fairly straightforward.

Thanks for your feedback,
Ludo’.