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