Re: [9fans] patches from 9front
I think the question of whether a patch is applied to the repo or kept as an optional patch should be: does it benefit everyone without breaking anything, fixes a bug, or enhances security? I use 9p.io as a reference for my setup. I appreciate that David has been judicious with the application of patches to the mainline. On Thu, Feb 11, 2021, 5:22 PM wrote: > Quoth David du Colombier <0in...@gmail.com>: > > Lufia did a lot of interesting stuff on APE. I've not merged > > them yet because I wasn't sure how it fits with changes other > > people have done on APE. > > Sure -- but some of them recently turned 2 years old, > which I'd personally find rather discouraging. > > This is why I was suggesting that echoline sort out > the way to get changes committed in advance, and if > the people along that way wanted them -- otherwise, > there seems a good chance that the changes would get > stuck in limbo. > > -- 9fans: 9fans Permalink: https://9fans.topicbox.com/groups/9fans/Tc82939f1fda0e479-M364edb5ded43a51f4f99ff66 Delivery options: https://9fans.topicbox.com/groups/9fans/subscription
Re: [9fans] patches from 9front
Quoth David du Colombier <0in...@gmail.com>: > > When I got git9 working on 9legacy, I backported a couple > > of utilities and changes: > > > > /n/sources/patch/walk > > /n/sources/patch/rc-line-split > > Thanks. I'll review these changes and eventually include > them into 9legacy. Thanks. Feel free to ask questions (or reject them). > Lufia did a lot of interesting stuff on APE. I've not merged > them yet because I wasn't sure how it fits with changes other > people have done on APE. Sure -- but some of them recently turned 2 years old, which I'd personally find rather discouraging. This is why I was suggesting that echoline sort out the way to get changes committed in advance, and if the people along that way wanted them -- otherwise, there seems a good chance that the changes would get stuck in limbo. -- 9fans: 9fans Permalink: https://9fans.topicbox.com/groups/9fans/Tc82939f1fda0e479-M706cfce195c3d1b65097441d Delivery options: https://9fans.topicbox.com/groups/9fans/subscription
Re: [9fans] patches from 9front
[lucio.d...@gmail.com] > I think what has kept Plan 9 ticking for the past 25 years or more, is > that this community is small enough to keep connected to the "product" > in its more abstract sense. Whatever that sense is, it is what we > share and, presumably, appreciate, so we ought to preserve it, neh? Plan 9 is one of my few anchors in this growth-crazy world, and the size and quality of the team that built it, and the community that formed around it, have a lot to do with it I think. Growth beyond the point of sustainability can be very corruptive. Working with Plan 9 for me is like travelling back to a time when things made sense and the future was full of exciting possibilities. -- 9fans: 9fans Permalink: https://9fans.topicbox.com/groups/9fans/Tc82939f1fda0e479-M75f3d3976db5cc17c420e7b5 Delivery options: https://9fans.topicbox.com/groups/9fans/subscription
Re: [9fans] patches from 9front
sometimes i prefer technical decisions to be taken by the people doing the work and not the community (e.g. not me). community can be nice in other situations, and we have several of those ready anyway, but normally people that make nothing happen should not hold special powers in any way. i might add my opinion some time cause i'm just so interested, but i'm not gonna be mad if everybody is just gonna ignore it based on my incompetence :) what kept plan 9 ticking is the relatively simple system design that actual living beings are able to read and understand. especially in contrast to the unix based systems out there this is obvious. if you have a problem with any of the design improvements that cinap has done to plan9 that created any kind of incompatibility please tell us more details so we can look into it or at least explain. On 2/11/21, Lucio De Re wrote: > On 2/11/21, hiro <23h...@gmail.com> wrote: >>> I like >>> to think that there is "One plan 9" struggling to be born from these >>> variations. >> >> it there's any "One plan 9" it's clearly called golang. cause all >> added syscalls to any of the distributions came from there... >> > Well, I'd love to catch up on how NetBSD coped with the Golang > demands, their Foundation was, to the best of my knowledge, also run > by "purists". That said, I presume the new syscalls could probably be > tucked in the Go runtime. Or is it essential to match everything that > Linux does? > >> if that incident had not happened i'd have now claimed: the one good >> thing that comes out of multiple competing plan9 distributions is that >> there's a stronger urge to stay backwards compatible, as that will >> provide interoperability between all competitors in the long run. >> > I don't see why that should not remain an objective, although not an > exclusive one. What I believe is that shrinking the base system is > preferable to expanding it. I'm willing to sacrifice performance for > simplicity, no matter what the public gets sold. > >> gladly the will to sync crucial changes regardless is strong enough, >> so i guess it doesn't matter. >> > It does matter. The need to incorporate many bug fixes from Cinap has > been obvious for a long time. But drawing the line between bug fixes > and incompatible changes is a responsibility that needs community > agreement, even when guided by a "foundation". > > I think what has kept Plan 9 ticking for the past 25 years or more, is > that this community is small enough to keep connected to the "product" > in its more abstract sense. Whatever that sense is, it is what we > share and, presumably, appreciate, so we ought to preserve it, neh? > > Lucio. -- 9fans: 9fans Permalink: https://9fans.topicbox.com/groups/9fans/Tc82939f1fda0e479-M204fbe4b6b220e17613e1c92 Delivery options: https://9fans.topicbox.com/groups/9fans/subscription
Re: [9fans] patches from 9front
On 2/11/21, hiro <23h...@gmail.com> wrote: >> I like >> to think that there is "One plan 9" struggling to be born from these >> variations. > > it there's any "One plan 9" it's clearly called golang. cause all > added syscalls to any of the distributions came from there... > Well, I'd love to catch up on how NetBSD coped with the Golang demands, their Foundation was, to the best of my knowledge, also run by "purists". That said, I presume the new syscalls could probably be tucked in the Go runtime. Or is it essential to match everything that Linux does? > if that incident had not happened i'd have now claimed: the one good > thing that comes out of multiple competing plan9 distributions is that > there's a stronger urge to stay backwards compatible, as that will > provide interoperability between all competitors in the long run. > I don't see why that should not remain an objective, although not an exclusive one. What I believe is that shrinking the base system is preferable to expanding it. I'm willing to sacrifice performance for simplicity, no matter what the public gets sold. > gladly the will to sync crucial changes regardless is strong enough, > so i guess it doesn't matter. > It does matter. The need to incorporate many bug fixes from Cinap has been obvious for a long time. But drawing the line between bug fixes and incompatible changes is a responsibility that needs community agreement, even when guided by a "foundation". I think what has kept Plan 9 ticking for the past 25 years or more, is that this community is small enough to keep connected to the "product" in its more abstract sense. Whatever that sense is, it is what we share and, presumably, appreciate, so we ought to preserve it, neh? Lucio. -- 9fans: 9fans Permalink: https://9fans.topicbox.com/groups/9fans/Tc82939f1fda0e479-M16387b553d4266e8a19cbce7 Delivery options: https://9fans.topicbox.com/groups/9fans/subscription
Re: [9fans] patches from 9front
> I like > to think that there is "One plan 9" struggling to be born from these > variations. it there's any "One plan 9" it's clearly called golang. cause all added syscalls to any of the distributions came from there... if that incident had not happened i'd have now claimed: the one good thing that comes out of multiple competing plan9 distributions is that there's a stronger urge to stay backwards compatible, as that will provide interoperability between all competitors in the long run. gladly the will to sync crucial changes regardless is strong enough, so i guess it doesn't matter. -- 9fans: 9fans Permalink: https://9fans.topicbox.com/groups/9fans/Tc82939f1fda0e479-M74bf58704b7b5859aee8024a Delivery options: https://9fans.topicbox.com/groups/9fans/subscription
Re: [9fans] patches from 9front
On Thu, Feb 11, 2021 at 09:24:38AM +0200, Lucio De Re wrote: > On 2/11/21, o...@eigenstate.org wrote: > > Quoth David du Colombier <0in...@gmail.com>: > >> 9legacy patches are available as "unified diff" format and > >> are generated with "ape/diff -Nru". > > > > Alright, noted for the future. > > > > Here's what I' ve been thinking about that may be worth sharing: I'd > like to have working 9legacy, 9pi (which I'd like to call 9muller, > frankly, if only for clarity, but also because it is what I run on my > i386 workstation, not yet the network server), 9atom and last, just to > emphasise it is NOT least, 9front. Each of those have useful > differences and even though I never really make any progress, I like > to think that there is "One plan 9" struggling to be born from these > variations. > That would be great. One could even think of a model where there is a common repository for the "common base" (sort of like illumos) and that the current OSes remain with their own identities as "distros" or "spins" from that common base. It is not bad per se that people have differing visions and/or community cultures, and that these can be cultivated in different ways. With a common base/upstream, improvements to one could easily also be implemented by the others. Personally I would love to see a "spin" that takes Sigrid's 9front rio modifications for workspaces and theming and make them default. For me that has become a huge improvement in the UI of Plan9. Hopefully that work will continue and improve further. > Would the Plan 9 Foundation be interested in proposing to this > community that such a concept be pursued and properly maintained and > laying down a project path to achieve this objective? Could there be > much smaller portions of such an objective that could be progressively > achieved in a distributed, centrally managed manner? > Hosting the common base at the foundation would be logical, I think. > Lucio -- 9fans: 9fans Permalink: https://9fans.topicbox.com/groups/9fans/Tc82939f1fda0e479-M172301466cce16502dcd2993 Delivery options: https://9fans.topicbox.com/groups/9fans/subscription
Re: [9fans] patches from 9front
> When I got git9 working on 9legacy, I backported a couple > of utilities and changes: > > /n/sources/patch/walk > /n/sources/patch/rc-line-split Thanks. I'll review these changes and eventually include them into 9legacy. > I also noticed that the changes that lufia had done on > the github repo have largely gone uncommented: > > https://github.com/0intro/plan9-contrib/pulls > https://github.com/lufia/plan9 Lufia did a lot of interesting stuff on APE. I've not merged them yet because I wasn't sure how it fits with changes other people have done on APE. -- David du Colombier -- 9fans: 9fans Permalink: https://9fans.topicbox.com/groups/9fans/Tc82939f1fda0e479-Ma5af7fc8fa0904f625dc6863 Delivery options: https://9fans.topicbox.com/groups/9fans/subscription
