On Fri, 29 Jun 2012 16:50:26 +0200, Bryce L Nordgren bnordg...@gmail.com
wrote:
Consensus as the only operating rule excludes Nix from the workplace.
Nearly all workplaces have nonnegotiable policies, and it's likely that
these will not be compatible. So there must always be an adaptation
Hi Michael, hi all!
On Fri, 29 Jun 2012 18:41:56 +0400, Michael Raskin 7c6f4...@mail.ru wrote:
I think it is more fruitful to think of the system between us
maintainers being anarchy, not democracy and therefore we should be
aware of and work with consensus.
For a nice description and one
I think it is more fruitful to think of the system between us
maintainers being anarchy, not democracy and therefore we should be
aware of and work with consensus.
For a nice description and one implementation of consensus, see:
https://www.noisebridge.net/wiki/Consensus
It does look
Also,
I value fast addition of new packages/new package versions above rarity
of local breakages in the fastest-moving branch. I separately value not
turning contributors away above avoidance of short glitches.
I think that having a partially-incompatible previous version (unless
there is a
Hi Michael,
Michael Weiss w...@borasi.de skribis:
Let's talk about names.
In fact names don’t matter with Nix. Each package is basically a
function that returns an attribute set and derivation or store path.
This result is a first-class object in the Nix language, so it can be
assigned to any
