Re: [Nix-dev] 6 month C4 adoption period
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
> > 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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
> 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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
*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
Not justified in the link? Are you kidding link? ___ 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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
[Nix-dev] 6 month C4 adoption period
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