Re: [Nix-dev] 'nixos-stable' channel?

[Vladimír Čunát]

On 03/08/2017 07:20 PM, David Izquierdo wrote:
> Pretty similar to how nixpkgs git -> Hydra -> cache works, with an
> additional testing phase.

To be clear, we do have quite a few nixos tests running on Hydra, and
the nixos channels won't update if some of the "critical ones" fail.
(Still, SUSE's testing is more thorough IIRC.)

--Vladimir



smime.p7s
Description: S/MIME Cryptographic Signature
___
nix-dev mailing list
nix-dev@lists.science.uu.nl
http://lists.science.uu.nl/mailman/listinfo/nix-dev

Re: [Nix-dev] 'nixos-stable' channel?

[David Izquierdo]

I think It could be worthwhile to look at openSUSE's Tumbleweed setup 
for rolling releases. They use openQA for automatic testing of every 
package in the distribution, and then release the binaries as snapshots 
for users to update. Pretty similar to how nixpkgs git -> Hydra -> cache 
works, with an additional testing phase. I _think_ they provide it 
hosted, and if it's similar to OBS, they actively encourage community 
members and distros to use their infrastructure.


https://openqa.opensuse.org/


On 06/03/17 12:24, Kevin Cox wrote:

On 06/03/17 06:54, Sander wrote:

Moving a symlink twice a year?
Good point. I guess it would be worth trying out and we can see how 
many people use this.


I was thinking something more rolling would be nice too. Like a 
lightly tested. Although that would definitely have more maintenance 
costs.

___
nix-dev mailing list
nix-dev@lists.science.uu.nl
http://lists.science.uu.nl/mailman/listinfo/nix-dev


___
nix-dev mailing list
nix-dev@lists.science.uu.nl
http://lists.science.uu.nl/mailman/listinfo/nix-dev

Re: [Nix-dev] 'nixos-stable' channel?

[Profpatsch]

On 17-03-06 04:03pm, Domen Kožar wrote:
> It's something like 15min of work to parse http://nixos.org/channels/ and
> point to the latest channel if someone needs this.
> 
> Officially this is a very bad idea, since people will want us to support it.

Also ignoring the idea behind stable upgrades,
that breaking changes are almost guaranteed.


-- 
Proudly written in Mutt with Vim on NixOS.
Q: Why is this email five sentences or less?
A: http://five.sentenc.es
May take up to five days to read your message. If it’s urgent, call me.
___
nix-dev mailing list
nix-dev@lists.science.uu.nl
http://lists.science.uu.nl/mailman/listinfo/nix-dev

Re: [Nix-dev] 'nixos-stable' channel?

[Sander]

zimbatm wrote (ao):
> At the moment we don't provide a strong guarantee that release
> upgrades will be 100% backward-compatible. Having a "stable" channel
> that jumps between releases would be misleading I think.

With Debian one can choose a specific [1]release (Wheezy, Jessie, Stretch,
Sid (roling release)), or old-stable (Wheezy), stable (Jessie, will
become old-stable)), testing (Stretch, will become stable), experimental
and unstable (Sid, always unstable). old-stable, stable, etc, are just
symlinks.

Linux all about choice. And Debian does not guarantee anything either.
You get to keep the pieces though.

I would like to pin my server to 'nixos-stable', just as my laptop is on
'nixos-unstable' (mostly because of wayland).

Sander

1. ftp://ftp.nl.debian.org/debian/dists/
___
nix-dev mailing list
nix-dev@lists.science.uu.nl
http://lists.science.uu.nl/mailman/listinfo/nix-dev

Re: [Nix-dev] 'nixos-stable' channel?

[zimbatm]

At the moment we don't provide a strong guarantee that release upgrades
will be 100% backward-compatible. Having a "stable" channel that jumps
between releases would be misleading I think.

On Mon, 6 Mar 2017, 15:07 Linus Heckemann,  wrote:

> On 06/03/17 15:03, Domen Kožar wrote:
> > It's something like 15min of work to parse http://nixos.org/channels/
> > and point to the latest channel if someone needs this.
> >
> > Officially this is a very bad idea, since people will want us to
> > support it.
>
> Isn't the point to just have it refer to the version of NixOS that *is*
> being supported? I don't see how parsing http://nixos.org/channels will
> convey that information — 17.03 has existed for longer than it's been
> supported, no? I.e. stable rather than latest.
> ___
> nix-dev mailing list
> nix-dev@lists.science.uu.nl
> http://lists.science.uu.nl/mailman/listinfo/nix-dev
>
___
nix-dev mailing list
nix-dev@lists.science.uu.nl
http://lists.science.uu.nl/mailman/listinfo/nix-dev

Re: [Nix-dev] 'nixos-stable' channel?

[Linus Heckemann]

On 06/03/17 15:03, Domen Kožar wrote:
> It's something like 15min of work to parse http://nixos.org/channels/
> and point to the latest channel if someone needs this.
> 
> Officially this is a very bad idea, since people will want us to 
> support it.

Isn't the point to just have it refer to the version of NixOS that *is*
being supported? I don't see how parsing http://nixos.org/channels will
convey that information — 17.03 has existed for longer than it's been
supported, no? I.e. stable rather than latest.
___
nix-dev mailing list
nix-dev@lists.science.uu.nl
http://lists.science.uu.nl/mailman/listinfo/nix-dev

Re: [Nix-dev] 'nixos-stable' channel?

[Domen Kožar]

It's something like 15min of work to parse http://nixos.org/channels/ and
point to the latest channel if someone needs this.

Officially this is a very bad idea, since people will want us to support it.

On Mon, Mar 6, 2017 at 12:24 PM, Kevin Cox  wrote:

> On 06/03/17 06:54, Sander wrote:
>
>> Moving a symlink twice a year?
>>
> Good point. I guess it would be worth trying out and we can see how many
> people use this.
>
> I was thinking something more rolling would be nice too. Like a lightly
> tested. Although that would definitely have more maintenance costs.
>
> ___
> nix-dev mailing list
> nix-dev@lists.science.uu.nl
> http://lists.science.uu.nl/mailman/listinfo/nix-dev
>
___
nix-dev mailing list
nix-dev@lists.science.uu.nl
http://lists.science.uu.nl/mailman/listinfo/nix-dev

Re: [Nix-dev] 'nixos-stable' channel?

[Kevin Cox]

On 06/03/17 06:54, Sander wrote:

Moving a symlink twice a year?
Good point. I guess it would be worth trying out and we can see how many 
people use this.


I was thinking something more rolling would be nice too. Like a lightly 
tested. Although that would definitely have more maintenance costs.

___
nix-dev mailing list
nix-dev@lists.science.uu.nl
http://lists.science.uu.nl/mailman/listinfo/nix-dev

Re: [Nix-dev] 'nixos-stable' channel? (was: Re: NixOS 17.03 Beta, 16.09 Security Support Timeline)

[Sander]

Kevin Cox wrote (ao):
> On Mar 5, 2017 19:26, "Bjørn Forsman"  wrote:
> > As long as the nixos-stable channel is an opt-in, why not?
> 
> Well there would be a maintenance overhead.

Moving a symlink twice a year?

Sander
___
nix-dev mailing list
nix-dev@lists.science.uu.nl
http://lists.science.uu.nl/mailman/listinfo/nix-dev

Re: [Nix-dev] 'nixos-stable' channel? (was: Re: NixOS 17.03 Beta, 16.09 Security Support Timeline)

[Kevin Cox]

On Mar 5, 2017 19:26, "Bjørn Forsman"  wrote:

As long as the nixos-stable channel is an opt-in, why not?


Well there would be a maintenance overhead.
___
nix-dev mailing list
nix-dev@lists.science.uu.nl
http://lists.science.uu.nl/mailman/listinfo/nix-dev

Re: [Nix-dev] 'nixos-stable' channel?

[Graham Christensen]

David Izquierdo  writes:

> I think it would be handy though. After all, this is NixOS we're talking 
> about. We already have system.stateVersion for protecting stateful data, 
> and fixing the rest of the system is only a rollback away. Why not make 
> the alias/symlink without making it the default?

Another option I've wanted to explore, is dropping warnings on old
channels. See: https://github.com/NixOS/nixpkgs/pull/22096

A nice benefit to this option is we can retroactively apply it to all
channels.

Graham

___
nix-dev mailing list
nix-dev@lists.science.uu.nl
http://lists.science.uu.nl/mailman/listinfo/nix-dev

Re: [Nix-dev] 'nixos-stable' channel? (was: Re: NixOS 17.03 Beta, 16.09 Security Support Timeline)

[Bjørn Forsman]

On 5 March 2017 at 20:22, Kevin Cox  wrote:
> Oops, forgot to include the list.
>
> On Mar 5, 2017 16:15, "Sander"  wrote:
>
> Graham Christensen wrote (ao):
>> NixOS 17.03 has entered Beta. This means we now have 3 versions of NixOS
>> being developed:
>>
>>  - 16.09 (stable)
>>  - 17.03 (beta)
>>  - unstable
>
> Would it make sense to have a 'nixos-stable' channel that points to
> whatever channel is stable?
>
> It's kinda a weird concept, as there would be breaking changes whenever it
> switched between releases but I do see the use of a more tested stream then
> nixos-unstable. Maybe it would be a channel with breaking changes but "no"
> broken packages?
>
> I would love to hear what people think about this.

As long as the nixos-stable channel is an opt-in, why not?

Best regards,
Bjørn Forsman
___
nix-dev mailing list
nix-dev@lists.science.uu.nl
http://lists.science.uu.nl/mailman/listinfo/nix-dev

Re: [Nix-dev] 'nixos-stable' channel? (was: Re: NixOS 17.03 Beta, 16.09 Security Support Timeline)

[Kevin Cox]

Oops, forgot to include the list.

On Mar 5, 2017 16:15, "Sander"  wrote:

Graham Christensen wrote (ao):
> NixOS 17.03 has entered Beta. This means we now have 3 versions of NixOS
> being developed:
>
>  - 16.09 (stable)
>  - 17.03 (beta)
>  - unstable

Would it make sense to have a 'nixos-stable' channel that points to
whatever channel is stable?


It's kinda a weird concept, as there would be breaking changes whenever it
switched between releases but I do see the use of a more tested stream then
nixos-unstable. Maybe it would be a channel with breaking changes but "no"
broken packages?

I would love to hear what people think about this.
___
nix-dev mailing list
nix-dev@lists.science.uu.nl
http://lists.science.uu.nl/mailman/listinfo/nix-dev

Re: [Nix-dev] 'nixos-stable' channel?

[David Izquierdo]

I think it would be handy though. After all, this is NixOS we're talking 
about. We already have system.stateVersion for protecting stateful data, 
and fixing the rest of the system is only a rollback away. Why not make 
the alias/symlink without making it the default?


On 05/03/17 19:37, Nathan Bijnens wrote:

I think that's dangerous. You will be upgrading without being aware of any
breaking changes.

N.

On Sun, Mar 5, 2017, 17:15 Sander  wrote:


Graham Christensen wrote (ao):

NixOS 17.03 has entered Beta. This means we now have 3 versions of NixOS
being developed:

  - 16.09 (stable)
  - 17.03 (beta)
  - unstable

Would it make sense to have a 'nixos-stable' channel that points to
whatever channel is stable?

 Sander
___
nix-dev mailing list
nix-dev@lists.science.uu.nl
http://lists.science.uu.nl/mailman/listinfo/nix-dev




___
nix-dev mailing list
nix-dev@lists.science.uu.nl
http://lists.science.uu.nl/mailman/listinfo/nix-dev


___
nix-dev mailing list
nix-dev@lists.science.uu.nl
http://lists.science.uu.nl/mailman/listinfo/nix-dev

Re: [Nix-dev] 'nixos-stable' channel? (was: Re: NixOS 17.03 Beta, 16.09 Security Support Timeline)

[Nathan Bijnens]

I think that's dangerous. You will be upgrading without being aware of any
breaking changes.

N.

On Sun, Mar 5, 2017, 17:15 Sander  wrote:

> Graham Christensen wrote (ao):
> > NixOS 17.03 has entered Beta. This means we now have 3 versions of NixOS
> > being developed:
> >
> >  - 16.09 (stable)
> >  - 17.03 (beta)
> >  - unstable
>
> Would it make sense to have a 'nixos-stable' channel that points to
> whatever channel is stable?
>
> Sander
> ___
> nix-dev mailing list
> nix-dev@lists.science.uu.nl
> http://lists.science.uu.nl/mailman/listinfo/nix-dev
>
___
nix-dev mailing list
nix-dev@lists.science.uu.nl
http://lists.science.uu.nl/mailman/listinfo/nix-dev

[Nix-dev] 'nixos-stable' channel? (was: Re: NixOS 17.03 Beta, 16.09 Security Support Timeline)

[Sander]

Graham Christensen wrote (ao):
> NixOS 17.03 has entered Beta. This means we now have 3 versions of NixOS
> being developed:
> 
>  - 16.09 (stable)
>  - 17.03 (beta)
>  - unstable

Would it make sense to have a 'nixos-stable' channel that points to
whatever channel is stable?

Sander
___
nix-dev mailing list
nix-dev@lists.science.uu.nl
http://lists.science.uu.nl/mailman/listinfo/nix-dev