Re: [Nix-dev] 6 month C4 adoption period

[stewart mackenzie]

Aye, generally one hopes he rests in peace, but if the cryonics option was
chosen then resting in piece is preferable. (I've interacted with him
enough to know that he'd laugh like a drain at that and he really wouldn't
want us getting all soppy on him.)

Domen, just studying the C4 might be insufficient, please can you read the
Psychopath Code, Social Architecture, and the Zeromq Manual. For a more
general understanding read Culture and Empire. All his material is freely
available online, but it might be a good gesture for people who are
seriously considering shifting Nixpkgs to C4 to buy his books. The website
will probably go down in a couple of years and having hard copies of his
thought patterns is good, plus it helps his children to purchase the books.

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

Re: [Nix-dev] 6 month C4 adoption period

[Domen Kožar]

Sorry for late response.

I'm planning to study C4 in detail in following months. Pieter had deep
knowledge about
communities so I'm sure he studied this in more detail than just default PR
workflow
we do on github.

I'll get back once I have a clearer picture of this.

Rest in Piece Pieter Hintjens (I silently hope he decided for cryonics)

On Wed, Aug 31, 2016 at 10:56 PM, Shea Levy  wrote:

> No, it did, I just got confused by the thread, sorry!
>
> Moritz Ulrich  writes:
>
> > [ Unknown signature status ]
> > Shea Levy  writes:
> >
> >>> This Moritz is the straw breaking the camel's back
> >>
> >> What, where did moritz come into this conversation?
> >
> > Just chiming in here: I answered to his mail, explaining why I didn't
> > merge one of his PR right away. Did this mail fail to make it to the
> > mailing list?
>
> ___
> 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] 6 month C4 adoption period

[Shea Levy]

No, it did, I just got confused by the thread, sorry!

Moritz Ulrich  writes:

> [ Unknown signature status ]
> Shea Levy  writes:
>
>>> This Moritz is the straw breaking the camel's back
>>
>> What, where did moritz come into this conversation?
>
> Just chiming in here: I answered to his mail, explaining why I didn't
> merge one of his PR right away. Did this mail fail to make it to the
> mailing list?


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

Re: [Nix-dev] 6 month C4 adoption period

[Moritz Ulrich]

Shea Levy  writes:

>> This Moritz is the straw breaking the camel's back
>
> What, where did moritz come into this conversation?

Just chiming in here: I answered to his mail, explaining why I didn't
merge one of his PR right away. Did this mail fail to make it to the
mailing list?


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

Re: [Nix-dev] 6 month C4 adoption period

[Jookia]

On Thu, Sep 01, 2016 at 01:17:02AM +0800, stewart mackenzie wrote:
> Throw beers at Garbas! Shower him in the best beer possible!
> 
> *Garbas rubs his nipples*

2.7.5:

Administrators SHOULD block or ban "bad actors" who cause stress and pain to
others in the project. This should be done after public discussion, with a
chance for all parties to speak. A bad actor is someone who repeatedly ignores
the rules and culture of the project, who is needlessly argumentative or
hostile, or who is offensive, and who is unable to self-correct their behavior
when asked to do so by others.
___
nix-dev mailing list
nix-dev@lists.science.uu.nl
http://lists.science.uu.nl/mailman/listinfo/nix-dev

Re: [Nix-dev] 6 month C4 adoption period

[stewart mackenzie]

Was that offensive? Sorry I thought it was funny. Forgive me I shan't
mention nipples again.

On 1 Sep 2016 03:51, "Jookia" <166...@gmail.com> wrote:

> On Thu, Sep 01, 2016 at 01:17:02AM +0800, stewart mackenzie wrote:
> > Throw beers at Garbas! Shower him in the best beer possible!
> >
> > *Garbas rubs his nipples*
>
> 2.7.5:
>
> Administrators SHOULD block or ban "bad actors" who cause stress and pain
> to
> others in the project. This should be done after public discussion, with a
> chance for all parties to speak. A bad actor is someone who repeatedly
> ignores
> the rules and culture of the project, who is needlessly argumentative or
> hostile, or who is offensive, and who is unable to self-correct their
> behavior
> when asked to do so by others.
>
___
nix-dev mailing list
nix-dev@lists.science.uu.nl
http://lists.science.uu.nl/mailman/listinfo/nix-dev

Re: [Nix-dev] 6 month C4 adoption period

[Shea Levy]

stewart mackenzie  writes:
>  Having @globin close the PR without a complete understanding

From the discussion there, globin understood your change perfectly well
and his closure was appropriate.

> Notice eelco saying lowprio is needed yet [1] has landed in mainline.

You are the one failing to understand what happened here. lowPrio is
needed for beta/unstable packages exposed to nix-env. I pushed that
commit because rustBeta and rustUnstable are package *sets*, not
packages, which lack recurseIntoAttrs and thus aren't exposed to
nix-env. Thus, the lowPrio was doing nothing. But this has *nothing* to
do with your original PR or the issue you were dealing with there, and
only came up because I was trying to demonstrate to you how lowPrio
actually worked.

> If you guys are not prepared to break apart this forming 'in
> crowd' with the C4, then what are your procedures on removing cultivated
> bad maintainers, or will you just let this become a systemic problem?

Show us a real example of a bad maintainer or even a maintainer behaving
badly, then we can discuss solving that problem. But note that "discuss
solving the problem" is not the same as "accept the solution you propose
without justification". If there is an issue with maintainer
behavior/incentives, and I don't really think there is in the sense you
are saying, then it does not automatically follow that we must adopt C4.

> Shall I reciprocate with the same level of rudeness I receive
> when submitting a patch?

In all of the discussions relating to this, you are the only one I've
seen being rude so far.

> Then to have another PR created [1] by the person who didn't take the time
> or energy to even read or understand the C4.

I think your links were messed up here, both of the PRs in your link
list were created by you. If, however, you are referring to the commit
where I removed the lowPrio from rustUnstable and rustBeta: I read the
link you provided. It did not immediately strike me as useful nor did it
provide justification for itself. I gave you every opportunity to
clarify, and you were rude and implied I was blind to the obvious. I
disagree with you, that is not the same as not taking the time or energy
to engage with you.

> This Moritz is the straw breaking the camel's back

What, where did moritz come into this conversation?

> Having people go around running algos on your level of
> commitment is such utter and total bullshit.

Can you point to an example of this happening? If it is actually
occurring, I agree it's bullshit and should be stopped if possible.

> Maybe I should just stop interacting with
> the nix crowd? Would you prefer that? If you'll let me maintain 1, only 1
> package on nixpkgs - a nix shell I'm developing. That's it I promise. I
> won't touch any other code. (See how mental that is?)

No one asked you to make this promise, so don't blame us for how
"mental" you think it is.

> Think about it for a second, when has the legal system ever passed laws to
> limit it's own power?

Who do you think signs constitutions?

> Passing the C4 will limit even Eelco's power. Imagine
> every single maintainer not being able to merge their own commits.

That sounds like a very inefficient state of affairs, with no clear benefit.


> The way lethalman handled this PR of mine is exactly the correct way [3]
> except there should have been no dialogue or at least reducing as much
> upfront consensus as possible

Why do we have PRs at all if they're just going to be merged automatically?

> Indeed, this is exactly what @globin should have done, cause I would
> have fixed it if it was broken, why? Cause that bit of code is in my
> L1 cache not @globin's. If for example I broke it and didn't fix it
> again, revert my commit.

globin saw, correctly, that your patch was broken. Why should it be
merged if it is known to be wrong?


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

Re: [Nix-dev] 6 month C4 adoption period

[stewart mackenzie]

Just one? A lunatic, now two? A crowd? Three? A rebellion!?

Resist your hatred for SJWs and wear the teeshirt for an email in support
please.

On 1 Sep 2016 01:48, "obadz"  wrote:

> On Wed, Aug 31, 2016 at 6:13 PM, stewart mackenzie 
> wrote:
>
>> this isn't a technical problem it's a people problem
>
>
> I think there are more people who agree with you on this than you think :-)
>
___
nix-dev mailing list
nix-dev@lists.science.uu.nl
http://lists.science.uu.nl/mailman/listinfo/nix-dev

Re: [Nix-dev] 6 month C4 adoption period

[obadz]

On Wed, Aug 31, 2016 at 6:13 PM, stewart mackenzie 
wrote:

> this isn't a technical problem it's a people problem


I think there are more people who agree with you on this than you think :-)
___
nix-dev mailing list
nix-dev@lists.science.uu.nl
http://lists.science.uu.nl/mailman/listinfo/nix-dev

Re: [Nix-dev] 6 month C4 adoption period

[stewart mackenzie]

Throw beers at Garbas! Shower him in the best beer possible!

*Garbas rubs his nipples*

On 1 Sep 2016 01:06, "zimbatm"  wrote:
>
> Related to the original rust frustration, Garbas has started the
https://github.com/garbas/nixpkgs-mozilla repo where Mozilla stuff is being
compiled. There is no hydra building this yet but that could be a nice
place to keep rust nightlies.
>
___
nix-dev mailing list
nix-dev@lists.science.uu.nl
http://lists.science.uu.nl/mailman/listinfo/nix-dev

Re: [Nix-dev] 6 month C4 adoption period

[stewart mackenzie]

I'm the canary in this goldmine, and this canary is dead.

What I'm about to describe is Amdahl's law biting the ass harder of
maintainers as nixpkgs grows in size. It's the reason why maintainers are
rudely closing PRs, it's the reason why maintainers are cutting corners
themselves yet expect super high standards from contributors.

Yes it's bloody annoying having someone who didn't even understand the PR
close it. Having @globin close the PR without a complete understanding and
he voted against C4 in [2], irritated me. Moritz I beg you to answer this
with blood streaming from my eyes, do you think @globin has any incentive
to solve my problem? Instead I get comments like "If you calm down I might
be interested in putting my time into trying to understand why this isn't
affected but I'm quite sure you misinterpret the meaning of lowprio".
That's after me waiting hours of compile time, no sleep for a long time.
Besides, I could have just created another PR to add lowprio back! Notice
eelco saying lowprio is needed yet [1] has landed in mainline. Yes I would
need to see if it actually worked on hydra, but I'm the one waiting and
learning! If you guys are not prepared to break apart this forming 'in
crowd' with the C4, then what are your procedures on removing cultivated
bad maintainers, or will you just let this become a systemic problem? I am
NOT implying @globin is a bad actor! This current stressful system will
turn good actors into bad actors.

I now don't care how under pressure you maintainers are... your power
structure dictates it, the very power structure you guys uphold and resist
my attempts at breaking. You could totally alleviate your self chosen
stress by adopting the C4.
Maintainers are becoming grumpy, the workload is higher, I had sympathy now
I do not. Shall I reciprocate with the same level of rudeness I receive
when submitting a patch?

I'm getting frustrated not at any individual, you're all, I'm sure, great
people I can have a good amount of beer with. It's your power structure I'm
rebelling against. It needs to change.

Then to have another PR created [1] by the person who didn't take the time
or energy to even read or understand the C4. Yes I have no patience for
people who do not read or understand something, especially when I've spoken
on the topic multiple times, endeavouring to answer questions politely and
nicely [2], and then to have a  habitual response with the "I'm a stressed
maintainer don't bother me" learned attitude. I will no longer write
volumes (doing it again ... damn) arguing with maintainers who don't want
to read, hence the 1+1=2 response. This Moritz is the straw breaking the
camel's back, a long while ago I noticed this rude behaviour of
maintainers, which is a direct result of the power structure and decided
not to commit or maintain packages on nixpkgs or even "aspire" to become a
nix maintainer. Having people go around running algos on your level of
commitment is such utter and total bullshit.

I get people approaching me out of band suggesting technical solutions to
this problem (regarding nixpkgs maintainers), this isn't a technical
problem it's a people problem. It's becoming a fiefdom, the in crowd,
forgive me, but that annoys me. Maybe I should just stop interacting with
the nix crowd? Would you prefer that? If you'll let me maintain 1, only 1
package on nixpkgs - a nix shell I'm developing. That's it I promise. I
won't touch any other code. (See how mental that is?)

[1] https://github.com/NixOS/nixpkgs/pull/18101/files
https://github.com/NixOS/nixpkgs/commit/d4e012780f7eee93f7600d5273edde7470f20c87

[2] https://github.com/NixOS/nixpkgs/issues/17407

[3] https://github.com/NixOS/nixpkgs/pull/18102

Think about it for a second, when has the legal system ever passed laws to
limit it's own power? Passing the C4 will limit even Eelco's power. Imagine
every single maintainer not being able to merge their own commits.

The way lethalman handled this PR of mine is exactly the correct way [3]
except there should have been no dialogue or at least reducing as much
upfront consensus as possible - you can't fight amdahl's law, and it's just
going to get worse the larger nix gets. Indeed, this is exactly what
@globin should have done, cause I would have fixed it if it was broken,
why? Cause that bit of code is in my L1 cache not @globin's. If for example
I broke it and didn't fix it again, revert my commit. Simple.
It's much less trouble on @globin to JUST check a correct patch and merge
it asap.

I repeat, you can't fight amdahl's law, and it's just going to get worse
the larger nix gets.

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

Re: [Nix-dev] 6 month C4 adoption period

[zimbatm]

Related to the original rust frustration, Garbas has started the
https://github.com/garbas/nixpkgs-mozilla repo where Mozilla stuff is being
compiled. There is no hydra building this yet but that could be a nice
place to keep rust nightlies.

On Wed, 31 Aug 2016 at 14:12 Moritz Ulrich  wrote:

> stewart mackenzie  writes:
>
> > Why is it like pulling teeth getting a simple pull request into nixpkgs?
>
> Because I had questions about this Pull Request. The size of the diff is
> what could be described as "simple", but the implications weren't clear
> to me. Your answers weren't satisfactory here, as it didn't seem that
> you thought of the consequences either.
>
> Other than that, you were just rude to people, and looking at this
> thread, you still are.
>
> You demand from us to merge your changes without thinking twice, and now
> you're trying to undermine the work people are putting into this open
> source project.
>
> > Something is _very_very_ broken people.
>
> What? If you write a detail on this we can start fixing it.
>
> > Can we please fix this asap? No I don't want to hear bullshit reasons
> > about keeping X Y Z maintainer's powers.
>
> Fix what? Who is talking about anyone keeping/removing "maintainer
> power" (I suppose push-access to nixpkgs)?
>
> ___
> 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] 6 month C4 adoption period

[Moritz Ulrich]

stewart mackenzie  writes:

> Why is it like pulling teeth getting a simple pull request into nixpkgs?

Because I had questions about this Pull Request. The size of the diff is
what could be described as "simple", but the implications weren't clear
to me. Your answers weren't satisfactory here, as it didn't seem that
you thought of the consequences either.

Other than that, you were just rude to people, and looking at this
thread, you still are. 

You demand from us to merge your changes without thinking twice, and now
you're trying to undermine the work people are putting into this open
source project.

> Something is _very_very_ broken people.

What? If you write a detail on this we can start fixing it. 

> Can we please fix this asap? No I don't want to hear bullshit reasons
> about keeping X Y Z maintainer's powers.

Fix what? Who is talking about anyone keeping/removing "maintainer
power" (I suppose push-access to nixpkgs)? 



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

Re: [Nix-dev] 6 month C4 adoption period

[Shea Levy]

Hi Roger,

The date is at the top of the page ("This evaluation was performed on
2016-08-29 12:11:27")

~Shea

Roger Qiu  writes:

> It would be useful if those revision hashes were paired with a date.
>
>
> On 30/08/2016 7:34 PM, Shea Levy wrote:
>> Hi Stewart,
>>
>> If you go to
>> http://hydra.nixos.org/job/nixos/release-16.03/nixpkgs.rustUnstable.rustc.x86_64-linux/latest/eval#tabs-inputs,
>> you can see the nixpkgs revision of the latest successful build of
>> rustUnstable. If you ensure that your nixpkgs is not later then that,
>> you should always get binaries. If you don't, please report back with
>> your nixpkgs.config.
>>
>> ~Shea
>>
>> stewart mackenzie  writes:
>>
>>> I just want this issue resolved.
>>>
>>> Every time I update / upgrade I recompile rustBeta then rustUnstable
>>> and it results in 1/2 day lost. This has happened frequently, recently
>>> as rustUnstable and rustBeta have been broken for a long time.
>>> (ie days have been lost finding working revs then compiling rust)
>>>
>>> If the lowprio removal doesn't solve this then how can I get it such
>>> that when I issue a `nixos-rebuild --upgrade switch` and my
>>> configuration.nix contains `rustUnstable.rustc`  downloads these
>>> binaries 
>>> http://hydra.nixos.org/job/nixos/release-16.03/nixpkgs.rustUnstable.rustc.x86_64-linux.
>>>
>>> What exactly does lowprio do?
>>>
>>>
>>> ___
>>> nix-dev mailing list
>>> nix-dev@lists.science.uu.nl
>>> http://lists.science.uu.nl/mailman/listinfo/nix-dev
>
> -- 
> Founder of Matrix AI
> https://matrix.ai/
> +61420925975
>
> ___
> nix-dev mailing list
> nix-dev@lists.science.uu.nl
> http://lists.science.uu.nl/mailman/listinfo/nix-dev


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

Re: [Nix-dev] 6 month C4 adoption period

[Shea Levy]

Hi Stewart,

stewart mackenzie  writes:

> On Tue, Aug 30, 2016 at 8:02 AM, Shea Levy  wrote:
>> globin missed the fact that the naming convention is messing up the
>> lowPrio logic, and your original PR had nothing to do with that. If rust
>> were named properly, your fix would be wrong.
>
> What is the exact naming scheme that rust should adopt?
>

That is what the other ml thread is about, to decide if indeed it should
be changed. If so I can change it, but essentially the -beta/-unstable
identifier should come *after* the version number/date, not before.

>
> I will make a pull request to fix this.
>
>> Even in this case where
>> your fix is harmless (which globin reasonably missed), it doesn't
>> actually fix your issue and in the event that the rust naming is fixed
>> it would be harmful then.
>
> Secondly, I want to test this harmful aspect. What is the expected
> harmful behaviour if I follow the steps to reproduce i.e.: correctly
> name each rust and remove lowprio?

Sure, check out this patch: http://sprunge.us/fieF

With that applied to nixpkgs, nix-env -f /path/to/nixpkgs -i rustc
--dry-run will choose rustc-1.11.0. However, if you remove the "lowPrio"
From the definition of rustcUnstable, then it will choose
rustc-1.13.0-master-g308824a.

It turns out due to the nested nature of rustUnstable and rustBeta in
nixpkgs, the lowPrio doesn't matter, as those packages aren't exposed to
nix-env by name at all. So I will remove that.

~Shea


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

Re: [Nix-dev] 6 month C4 adoption period

[Roger Qiu]

It would be useful if those revision hashes were paired with a date.


On 30/08/2016 7:34 PM, Shea Levy wrote:

Hi Stewart,

If you go to
http://hydra.nixos.org/job/nixos/release-16.03/nixpkgs.rustUnstable.rustc.x86_64-linux/latest/eval#tabs-inputs,
you can see the nixpkgs revision of the latest successful build of
rustUnstable. If you ensure that your nixpkgs is not later then that,
you should always get binaries. If you don't, please report back with
your nixpkgs.config.

~Shea

stewart mackenzie  writes:


I just want this issue resolved.

Every time I update / upgrade I recompile rustBeta then rustUnstable
and it results in 1/2 day lost. This has happened frequently, recently
as rustUnstable and rustBeta have been broken for a long time.
(ie days have been lost finding working revs then compiling rust)

If the lowprio removal doesn't solve this then how can I get it such
that when I issue a `nixos-rebuild --upgrade switch` and my
configuration.nix contains `rustUnstable.rustc`  downloads these
binaries 
http://hydra.nixos.org/job/nixos/release-16.03/nixpkgs.rustUnstable.rustc.x86_64-linux.

What exactly does lowprio do?


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


--
Founder of Matrix AI
https://matrix.ai/
+61420925975

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

Re: [Nix-dev] 6 month C4 adoption period

[Shea Levy]

Hi Stewart,

If you go to
http://hydra.nixos.org/job/nixos/release-16.03/nixpkgs.rustUnstable.rustc.x86_64-linux/latest/eval#tabs-inputs,
you can see the nixpkgs revision of the latest successful build of
rustUnstable. If you ensure that your nixpkgs is not later then that,
you should always get binaries. If you don't, please report back with
your nixpkgs.config.

~Shea

stewart mackenzie  writes:

> I just want this issue resolved.
>
> Every time I update / upgrade I recompile rustBeta then rustUnstable
> and it results in 1/2 day lost. This has happened frequently, recently
> as rustUnstable and rustBeta have been broken for a long time.
> (ie days have been lost finding working revs then compiling rust)
>
> If the lowprio removal doesn't solve this then how can I get it such
> that when I issue a `nixos-rebuild --upgrade switch` and my
> configuration.nix contains `rustUnstable.rustc`  downloads these
> binaries 
> http://hydra.nixos.org/job/nixos/release-16.03/nixpkgs.rustUnstable.rustc.x86_64-linux.
>
> What exactly does lowprio do?


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

Re: [Nix-dev] 6 month C4 adoption period

[stewart mackenzie]

On Tue, Aug 30, 2016 at 8:02 AM, Shea Levy  wrote:
> globin missed the fact that the naming convention is messing up the
> lowPrio logic, and your original PR had nothing to do with that. If rust
> were named properly, your fix would be wrong.

What is the exact naming scheme that rust should adopt?

I will make a pull request to fix this.

> Even in this case where
> your fix is harmless (which globin reasonably missed), it doesn't
> actually fix your issue and in the event that the rust naming is fixed
> it would be harmful then.

Secondly, I want to test this harmful aspect. What is the expected
harmful behaviour if I follow the steps to reproduce i.e.: correctly
name each rust and remove lowprio?
___
nix-dev mailing list
nix-dev@lists.science.uu.nl
http://lists.science.uu.nl/mailman/listinfo/nix-dev

Re: [Nix-dev] 6 month C4 adoption period

[stewart mackenzie]

rust is a fast moving target, I don't want too much breakage. Recently
upstream decided to shove experimental features into nightly releases
(ie the allocator we're using which broke our build), this would cause
huge breakage and annoyance ameliorating issues.

It's better to keep lockstep with Rust. Once those experimental
features *eventually* hit stable then I'll breathe a sigh of relief.
Till then, it's the march of wicked.
___
nix-dev mailing list
nix-dev@lists.science.uu.nl
http://lists.science.uu.nl/mailman/listinfo/nix-dev

Re: [Nix-dev] 6 month C4 adoption period

[obadz]

>
> IMO proposals that affect the entire community should at least bementioned
> on the ML


It was discussed on the ML last month:
http://lists.science.uu.nl/pipermail/nix-dev/2016-July/021170.html

On Tue, Aug 30, 2016 at 1:18 AM, Shea Levy  wrote:

> IMO proposals that affect the entire community should at least be
> mentioned on the ML, as the nixpkgs tracker is way too noisy for many of
> us to follow all issues opened there.
>
> obadz  writes:
>
> > For what it's worth there's an issue about adopting C4 (and other related
> > proposals). So far none have really achieved consensus but this is
> probably
> > where the conversation (if we can call it that) should continue:
> > https://github.com/NixOS/nixpkgs/issues/17407#issuecomment-236450392
> >
> > lowPrio's code is here
> > https://github.com/NixOS/nixpkgs/blob/master/lib/meta.nix#L45-L48
> > Various packages can have the same "name" field in the top-level. lowPrio
> > says, «if someone tries to install something with that name, and there
> are
> > others available, prefer one of the others»
> > Personally, I prefer to use nix-env -iA so that there is no ambiguity.
> > (attribute set keys are guaranteed unique or you'll get an eval error).
> >
> > On Tue, Aug 30, 2016 at 1:11 AM, stewart mackenzie 
> > wrote:
> >
> >> I just want this issue resolved.
> >>
> >> Every time I update / upgrade I recompile rustBeta then rustUnstable
> >> and it results in 1/2 day lost. This has happened frequently, recently
> >> as rustUnstable and rustBeta have been broken for a long time.
> >> (ie days have been lost finding working revs then compiling rust)
> >>
> >> If the lowprio removal doesn't solve this then how can I get it such
> >> that when I issue a `nixos-rebuild --upgrade switch` and my
> >> configuration.nix contains `rustUnstable.rustc`  downloads these
> >> binaries http://hydra.nixos.org/job/nixos/release-16.03/nixpkgs.
> >> rustUnstable.rustc.x86_64-linux.
> >>
> >> What exactly does lowprio do?
> >> ___
> >> 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] 6 month C4 adoption period

[obadz]

If you have expensive-to-compile stuff that hydra doesn't build, just
freeze (or upgrade quarterly for instance) the version of nixpkgs that you
use for that particular stuff. (The rest of your system can happily keep
updating at a brisker pace).


On Tue, Aug 30, 2016 at 1:19 AM, stewart mackenzie 
wrote:

> Okay, then I'm absolutely boggled as to why each and every time I
> update I have recompile rustBeta.rustc then rustUnstable.rustc.
>
> I've literally been using nix-build ... -I
> nixpkgs=https://github.com/NixOS/nixpkgs-channels/archive/
> 125089b6bd360c82cf986d8cc9b17fc2e8ac.tar.gz
> for more than a month.
> That is the last working revision of Rust.
>
> I really should get sleep. I'm at my wits end.
>
___
nix-dev mailing list
nix-dev@lists.science.uu.nl
http://lists.science.uu.nl/mailman/listinfo/nix-dev

Re: [Nix-dev] 6 month C4 adoption period

[stewart mackenzie]

Sorry guys for showing my anger.

Shea, you're doing a great job and I rely on your great work all the time.
Thanks
___
nix-dev mailing list
nix-dev@lists.science.uu.nl
http://lists.science.uu.nl/mailman/listinfo/nix-dev

Re: [Nix-dev] 6 month C4 adoption period

[stewart mackenzie]

Okay, then I'm absolutely boggled as to why each and every time I
update I have recompile rustBeta.rustc then rustUnstable.rustc.

I've literally been using nix-build ... -I
nixpkgs=https://github.com/NixOS/nixpkgs-channels/archive/125089b6bd360c82cf986d8cc9b17fc2e8ac.tar.gz
for more than a month.
That is the last working revision of Rust.

I really should get sleep. I'm at my wits end.
___
nix-dev mailing list
nix-dev@lists.science.uu.nl
http://lists.science.uu.nl/mailman/listinfo/nix-dev

Re: [Nix-dev] 6 month C4 adoption period

[Shea Levy]

IMO proposals that affect the entire community should at least be
mentioned on the ML, as the nixpkgs tracker is way too noisy for many of
us to follow all issues opened there.

obadz  writes:

> For what it's worth there's an issue about adopting C4 (and other related
> proposals). So far none have really achieved consensus but this is probably
> where the conversation (if we can call it that) should continue:
> https://github.com/NixOS/nixpkgs/issues/17407#issuecomment-236450392
>
> lowPrio's code is here
> https://github.com/NixOS/nixpkgs/blob/master/lib/meta.nix#L45-L48
> Various packages can have the same "name" field in the top-level. lowPrio
> says, «if someone tries to install something with that name, and there are
> others available, prefer one of the others»
> Personally, I prefer to use nix-env -iA so that there is no ambiguity.
> (attribute set keys are guaranteed unique or you'll get an eval error).
>
> On Tue, Aug 30, 2016 at 1:11 AM, stewart mackenzie 
> wrote:
>
>> I just want this issue resolved.
>>
>> Every time I update / upgrade I recompile rustBeta then rustUnstable
>> and it results in 1/2 day lost. This has happened frequently, recently
>> as rustUnstable and rustBeta have been broken for a long time.
>> (ie days have been lost finding working revs then compiling rust)
>>
>> If the lowprio removal doesn't solve this then how can I get it such
>> that when I issue a `nixos-rebuild --upgrade switch` and my
>> configuration.nix contains `rustUnstable.rustc`  downloads these
>> binaries http://hydra.nixos.org/job/nixos/release-16.03/nixpkgs.
>> rustUnstable.rustc.x86_64-linux.
>>
>> What exactly does lowprio do?
>> ___
>> nix-dev mailing list
>> nix-dev@lists.science.uu.nl
>> http://lists.science.uu.nl/mailman/listinfo/nix-dev
>>


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

Re: [Nix-dev] 6 month C4 adoption period

[obadz]

For what it's worth there's an issue about adopting C4 (and other related
proposals). So far none have really achieved consensus but this is probably
where the conversation (if we can call it that) should continue:
https://github.com/NixOS/nixpkgs/issues/17407#issuecomment-236450392

lowPrio's code is here
https://github.com/NixOS/nixpkgs/blob/master/lib/meta.nix#L45-L48
Various packages can have the same "name" field in the top-level. lowPrio
says, «if someone tries to install something with that name, and there are
others available, prefer one of the others»
Personally, I prefer to use nix-env -iA so that there is no ambiguity.
(attribute set keys are guaranteed unique or you'll get an eval error).

On Tue, Aug 30, 2016 at 1:11 AM, stewart mackenzie 
wrote:

> I just want this issue resolved.
>
> Every time I update / upgrade I recompile rustBeta then rustUnstable
> and it results in 1/2 day lost. This has happened frequently, recently
> as rustUnstable and rustBeta have been broken for a long time.
> (ie days have been lost finding working revs then compiling rust)
>
> If the lowprio removal doesn't solve this then how can I get it such
> that when I issue a `nixos-rebuild --upgrade switch` and my
> configuration.nix contains `rustUnstable.rustc`  downloads these
> binaries http://hydra.nixos.org/job/nixos/release-16.03/nixpkgs.
> rustUnstable.rustc.x86_64-linux.
>
> What exactly does lowprio do?
> ___
> 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] 6 month C4 adoption period

[stewart mackenzie]

I just want this issue resolved.

Every time I update / upgrade I recompile rustBeta then rustUnstable
and it results in 1/2 day lost. This has happened frequently, recently
as rustUnstable and rustBeta have been broken for a long time.
(ie days have been lost finding working revs then compiling rust)

If the lowprio removal doesn't solve this then how can I get it such
that when I issue a `nixos-rebuild --upgrade switch` and my
configuration.nix contains `rustUnstable.rustc`  downloads these
binaries 
http://hydra.nixos.org/job/nixos/release-16.03/nixpkgs.rustUnstable.rustc.x86_64-linux.

What exactly does lowprio do?
___
nix-dev mailing list
nix-dev@lists.science.uu.nl
http://lists.science.uu.nl/mailman/listinfo/nix-dev

Re: [Nix-dev] 6 month C4 adoption period

[Sergiu Ivanov]

Hello,

Thus quoth  stewart mackenzie  at 01:28 on Di, Aug 30 2016:
>
> due to multiple causes, but the latest straw on the camel's back is
> this pull request: https://github.com/NixOS/nixpkgs/pull/18101

If you want any policy adopted, I suppose you should provide clear
argumentation, including listing the problems that this new policy
should solve.  You should also explain what this new policy is supposed
to change with respect to the way things work right now.

Unfortunately, your arguments now look a lot like messages of
frustration (which I can understand), but I hope you can also understand
that that does not look like enough justification for an adoption of a
policy by an entire community.

-- 
Sergiu


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

Re: [Nix-dev] 6 month C4 adoption period

[Jookia]

On Tue, Aug 30, 2016 at 07:28:43AM +0800, stewart mackenzie wrote:
> due to multiple causes, but the latest straw on the camel's back is
> this pull request: https://github.com/NixOS/nixpkgs/pull/18101

Hey there,

I think you need to calm down a little with the comments. You seem to want
people to review or reply to things in very fast fashion, which I don't think a
lot of people can do. You also aren't that good at communicating what you want
from people, which I think you can do better if you try. For instance, saying
you wish for something then someone not replying to your wish, doesn't mean they
voted against it (there wasn't even a vote!)

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

Re: [Nix-dev] 6 month C4 adoption period

[Tobias Geerinckx-Rice]

Stewart,

On 30/08/16 01:50, stewart mackenzie wrote:
> 1+1=2
> *me

Please stop. Such e-mails, like your original PR, add little value.

T G-R



signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
___
nix-dev mailing list
nix-dev@lists.science.uu.nl
http://lists.science.uu.nl/mailman/listinfo/nix-dev

Re: [Nix-dev] 6 month C4 adoption period

[Shea Levy]

Alright, I'm done. If someone can come up with a real argument for this
change, I'll be happy to review it then.

stewart mackenzie  writes:

> 1+1=2


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

Re: [Nix-dev] 6 month C4 adoption period

[Shea Levy]

As globin pointed out, the lowPrio has nothing to do with
hydra. Instead, it makes it so nix-env does not consider the package by
default during install. It happens in this case that the beta and
unstable versions of rust have -beta and -unstable in their names, so
nix-env considers them separately, but anyway this PR does not achieve
what you want. In fact currently the lowPrio is doing nothing due to
that naming convention (which IMO should be changed), but removing it
will not affect hydra.

stewart mackenzie  writes:

>> adversely affect nix-env users in that case.
>
> How?


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

Re: [Nix-dev] 6 month C4 adoption period

[stewart mackenzie]

> adversely affect nix-env users in that case.

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

Re: [Nix-dev] 6 month C4 adoption period

[Shea Levy]

OK, this is a specific problem you have: it's hard to get a simple pull
request into nixpkgs. If that's the case, how does C4 help fix it? And
at what cost, if any?

By the way, I agree with the closing of the PR you linked to earlier,
removing the lowPrio has nothing to do with the hydra build and will
adversely affect nix-env users in that case.

stewart mackenzie  writes:

> Why is it like pulling teeth getting a simple pull request into nixpkgs?
>
> Something is _very_very_ broken people.
>
> Can we please fix this asap? No I don't want to hear bullshit reasons
> about keeping X Y Z maintainer's powers.


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

Re: [Nix-dev] 6 month C4 adoption period

[stewart mackenzie]

1+1=2
___
nix-dev mailing list
nix-dev@lists.science.uu.nl
http://lists.science.uu.nl/mailman/listinfo/nix-dev

Re: [Nix-dev] 6 month C4 adoption period

[Shea Levy]

Let me clarify: Why do those rules specifically help achieve those
goals? As I said, the goals are very high level and the rules very
specific.

stewart mackenzie  writes:

> in the beginning Shea... where it says "Goals"


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

Re: [Nix-dev] 6 month C4 adoption period

[stewart mackenzie]

Why is it like pulling teeth getting a simple pull request into nixpkgs?

Something is _very_very_ broken people.

Can we please fix this asap? No I don't want to hear bullshit reasons
about keeping X Y Z maintainer's powers.
___
nix-dev mailing list
nix-dev@lists.science.uu.nl
http://lists.science.uu.nl/mailman/listinfo/nix-dev

Re: [Nix-dev] 6 month C4 adoption period

[stewart mackenzie]

in the beginning Shea... where it says "Goals"
___
nix-dev mailing list
nix-dev@lists.science.uu.nl
http://lists.science.uu.nl/mailman/listinfo/nix-dev

Re: [Nix-dev] 6 month C4 adoption period

[Shea Levy]

I have no idea what you mean by "backtrack". All I see in that link is a
list of very high level goals and very specific rules. If the rules are
justified somewhere in there, I missed it in my quick glance over. Where
should I look for the specific justification?

stewart mackenzie  writes:

> On Tue, Aug 30, 2016 at 7:36 AM, Shea Levy  wrote:
>> Perhaps they are not random if you know their origin or justification,
>> neither is given at the link though.
>
> Backtrack? Are you kidding me?


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

Re: [Nix-dev] 6 month C4 adoption period

[stewart mackenzie]

On Tue, Aug 30, 2016 at 7:36 AM, Shea Levy  wrote:
> Perhaps they are not random if you know their origin or justification,
> neither is given at the link though.

Backtrack? Are you kidding me?
___
nix-dev mailing list
nix-dev@lists.science.uu.nl
http://lists.science.uu.nl/mailman/listinfo/nix-dev

Re: [Nix-dev] 6 month C4 adoption period

[stewart mackenzie]

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

Re: [Nix-dev] 6 month C4 adoption period

[Shea Levy]

Perhaps they are not random if you know their origin or justification,
neither is given at the link though.

stewart mackenzie  writes:

> Sigh, random rules? Are you kidding me?
>
> Nevermind


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

Re: [Nix-dev] 6 month C4 adoption period

[stewart mackenzie]

Sigh, random rules? Are you kidding me?

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

Re: [Nix-dev] 6 month C4 adoption period

[Shea Levy]

If that thread represents the argument for C4, then I vote no.

stewart mackenzie  writes:

> due to multiple causes, but the latest straw on the camel's back is
> this pull request: https://github.com/NixOS/nixpkgs/pull/18101


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

Re: [Nix-dev] 6 month C4 adoption period

[Shea Levy]

This is a bunch of legalese with a lot of random rules not justified in
the link. Why should we care? What problem does it solve? What problems
might it introduce?

stewart mackenzie  writes:

> http://rfc.zeromq.org/spec:42/C4/


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

Re: [Nix-dev] 6 month C4 adoption period

[stewart mackenzie]

due to multiple causes, but the latest straw on the camel's back is
this pull request: https://github.com/NixOS/nixpkgs/pull/18101
___
nix-dev mailing list
nix-dev@lists.science.uu.nl
http://lists.science.uu.nl/mailman/listinfo/nix-dev

Re: [Nix-dev] 6 month C4 adoption period

[stewart mackenzie]

http://rfc.zeromq.org/spec:42/C4/
___
nix-dev mailing list
nix-dev@lists.science.uu.nl
http://lists.science.uu.nl/mailman/listinfo/nix-dev

Re: [Nix-dev] 6 month C4 adoption period

[Shea Levy]

What does this mean?

stewart mackenzie  writes:

> Dear Nixers,
>
> Please may we start a C4 adoption period of 6 months then do a review
> after this?
>
> Kind regards
> Stewart
> ___
> nix-dev mailing list
> nix-dev@lists.science.uu.nl
> http://lists.science.uu.nl/mailman/listinfo/nix-dev


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