On Wed, Jun 27, 2012 at 6:02 AM, Michael Weiss <[email protected]> wrote:
> Greetings, > > I'd like to derail the discussion about policy and focus on the parts > about how to reduce the need to agree on policy. As others have pointed > out, nix is great for having your own cake and I want to know how to > make the most of it. > This part here is what I'd really like to focus on. I think it's too early to propose specific technical solutions such as a global namespace convention. Backing up a step, I think the main point is to find a way to structure the Nix community so that more stakeholders can have their needs met without imposing their solutions on others. Conversely, stakeholders want to be able to maximize the amount of other people's work they can reuse. I doodled a "desired future condition" on the wiki (with a picture). The stakeholders are explicitly identified, along with their probable perspective on the situation. Feel free to discuss it here or edit it there. In any case, I think it would go much smoother if we limit the discussion to how these stakeholders come together to form a community, and avoid what specific tooling is required. Fundamentally, this means a transition from a centralized collection of packages to a distributed set of packages, each one maintained by a concerned stakeholder. To avoid some of the technical problems Marc brought up, one could envision forming the expectation that stakeholders provide some sort of stability guarantee (i.e., we promise not to change the name of the package; or we'll publish our set of nix expressions as a versioned "release" which can be downloaded to your nix store). I think these kind of high level expectations placed on the humans can go a long way to making the technical solutions more tractable. https://nixos.org/wiki/The_Many_Cooks_Method Bryce
_______________________________________________ nix-dev mailing list [email protected] http://lists.science.uu.nl/mailman/listinfo/nix-dev
