Re: [Nix-dev] RFC for RFCs

2017-03-23 Thread Vladimír Čunát
On 03/23/2017 12:58 AM, Bas van Dijk wrote:
> Strange this has been merged into master over a year ago but it hasn't
> been released yet. And there have been quite a few releases the last year...

There have only been maintenance releases 1.11.x since January 2016, and
most of master code since then is missing from any release.

--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] RFC for RFCs

2017-03-22 Thread Bas van Dijk
Thanks for the pointer! It looks like that's exactly what I need. Strange
this has been merged into master over a year ago but it hasn't been
released yet. And there have been quite a few releases the last year...

On 21 March 2017 at 09:06, Vladimír Čunát  wrote:

> On 03/21/2017 01:35 AM, Bas van Dijk wrote:
> > I would like a RFC on floating-point support in Nix. Unfortunately I
> > don't have time to work on that myself.
>
> For the record, Nix does support floats, though not in any release yet.
> https://github.com/NixOS/nix/pull/762
> (You might've meant some more specific aspects of the float support.)
>
> --Vladimir
>
>
>
___
nix-dev mailing list
nix-dev@lists.science.uu.nl
http://lists.science.uu.nl/mailman/listinfo/nix-dev


Re: [Nix-dev] RFC for RFCs

2017-03-21 Thread Vladimír Čunát
On 03/21/2017 01:35 AM, Bas van Dijk wrote:
> I would like a RFC on floating-point support in Nix. Unfortunately I
> don't have time to work on that myself.

For the record, Nix does support floats, though not in any release yet.
https://github.com/NixOS/nix/pull/762
(You might've meant some more specific aspects of the float support.)

--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] RFC for RFCs

2017-03-20 Thread Bas van Dijk
Good to see this happen!

I would like a RFC on floating-point support in Nix. Unfortunately I don't
have time to work on that myself.

Bas

On 18 March 2017 at 23:09, zimbatm  wrote:

> RFC 0001 has been merged! The repo still needs to be moved to the NixOS
> org but we're getting there :)
>
> To keep the ball rolling, let me know if you want to try drafting a RFC.
> The whole process is probably still a bit rough and we need to get a couple
> of RFCs trough the process to make it better.
>
> Cheers,
> z
>
> On Thu, 9 Mar 2017 at 17:44 Rok Garbas  wrote:
>
>> I haven't read the latest changes in the RFC, but I welcome any more
>> formal process for major changes.
>>
>> Thank you @zimbatm for pursuing this.
>>
>>
>> > On 09 March 2017 at 13:09 Tomasz Czyż  wrote:
>> >
>> >
>> > Thanks! Great stuff!
>> >
>> > 2017-03-08 21:21 GMT+00:00 zimbatm :
>> >
>> > > The RFC for RFCs is ready for a final round of review. Unless there
>> are
>> > > major objections I would like to move forward with it, with the idea
>> that
>> > > we can always improve the process with further RFCs.
>> > >
>> > > https://github.com/zimbatm/rfcs/pull/1
>> > >
>> > > On Sun, 12 Feb 2017 at 20:17 Maarten Hoogendoorn 
>> > > wrote:
>> > >
>> > >> Also see the notes that Arian took during the BoF session at FOSDEM:
>> > >>
>> > >> We had a very spontaneous NixOS discussion panel at FOSDEM.
>> > >>
>> > >> I took minutes.  I must say they're a bit rushy at times, so add
>> stuff to
>> > >> it
>> > >> you think isn't clear or is lacking in content.  Thanks!
>> > >>
>> > >>
>> > >> http://piratepad.net/1nHg65LMQj
>> > >>
>> > >>
>> > >> 2017-02-12 19:46 GMT+01:00 Thomas Hunger :
>> > >>
>> > >> That would be amazing! I actually have an email sitting in my draft
>> > >> folder proposing Nix Enhancement Proposals (NEPs).
>> > >>
>> > >> IMHO one of the things we aren't very good at is getting larger
>> changes
>> > >> merged or rejected. We attract a lot of smart people because Nix is
>> pretty
>> > >> awesome. These smart people then do substantial work, submit a PR
>> and the
>> > >> PR bitrots. This is highly demotivating.
>> > >>
>> > >> An RFC process would allow us to get to an accept / reject early on,
>> with
>> > >> the expectation that accepted RFCs will be merged when the technical
>> work
>> > >> is done.
>> > >>
>> > >> I'll add more specific comments to your PR.
>> > >>
>> > >> ~
>> > >>
>> > >> On 12 February 2017 at 15:12, zimbatm  wrote:
>> > >>
>> > >> Hi all,
>> > >>
>> > >> we discussed of introducing a RFC process during FOSDEM. The goal is
>> to
>> > >> help discussion for large or controversial changes which typically
>> grind to
>> > >> a halt.
>> > >>
>> > >> Here is an initial proposal based on the one from the Rust community:
>> > >> https://github.com/zimbatm/rfcs/pull/1 . Please let me know what you
>> > >> think.
>> > >>
>> > >> Cheers,
>> > >> z
>> > >>
>> > >> ___
>> > >> 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
>> > >
>> > >
>> >
>> >
>> > --
>> > Tomasz Czyż
>> > ___
>> > nix-dev mailing list
>> > nix-dev@lists.science.uu.nl
>> > http://lists.science.uu.nl/mailman/listinfo/nix-dev
>>
>> -- Rok Garbas, https://garbas.si
>>
>
> ___
> 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] RFC for RFCs

2017-03-18 Thread zimbatm
RFC 0001 has been merged! The repo still needs to be moved to the NixOS org
but we're getting there :)

To keep the ball rolling, let me know if you want to try drafting a RFC.
The whole process is probably still a bit rough and we need to get a couple
of RFCs trough the process to make it better.

Cheers,
z

On Thu, 9 Mar 2017 at 17:44 Rok Garbas  wrote:

> I haven't read the latest changes in the RFC, but I welcome any more
> formal process for major changes.
>
> Thank you @zimbatm for pursuing this.
>
>
> > On 09 March 2017 at 13:09 Tomasz Czyż  wrote:
> >
> >
> > Thanks! Great stuff!
> >
> > 2017-03-08 21:21 GMT+00:00 zimbatm :
> >
> > > The RFC for RFCs is ready for a final round of review. Unless there are
> > > major objections I would like to move forward with it, with the idea
> that
> > > we can always improve the process with further RFCs.
> > >
> > > https://github.com/zimbatm/rfcs/pull/1
> > >
> > > On Sun, 12 Feb 2017 at 20:17 Maarten Hoogendoorn 
> > > wrote:
> > >
> > >> Also see the notes that Arian took during the BoF session at FOSDEM:
> > >>
> > >> We had a very spontaneous NixOS discussion panel at FOSDEM.
> > >>
> > >> I took minutes.  I must say they're a bit rushy at times, so add
> stuff to
> > >> it
> > >> you think isn't clear or is lacking in content.  Thanks!
> > >>
> > >>
> > >> http://piratepad.net/1nHg65LMQj
> > >>
> > >>
> > >> 2017-02-12 19:46 GMT+01:00 Thomas Hunger :
> > >>
> > >> That would be amazing! I actually have an email sitting in my draft
> > >> folder proposing Nix Enhancement Proposals (NEPs).
> > >>
> > >> IMHO one of the things we aren't very good at is getting larger
> changes
> > >> merged or rejected. We attract a lot of smart people because Nix is
> pretty
> > >> awesome. These smart people then do substantial work, submit a PR and
> the
> > >> PR bitrots. This is highly demotivating.
> > >>
> > >> An RFC process would allow us to get to an accept / reject early on,
> with
> > >> the expectation that accepted RFCs will be merged when the technical
> work
> > >> is done.
> > >>
> > >> I'll add more specific comments to your PR.
> > >>
> > >> ~
> > >>
> > >> On 12 February 2017 at 15:12, zimbatm  wrote:
> > >>
> > >> Hi all,
> > >>
> > >> we discussed of introducing a RFC process during FOSDEM. The goal is
> to
> > >> help discussion for large or controversial changes which typically
> grind to
> > >> a halt.
> > >>
> > >> Here is an initial proposal based on the one from the Rust community:
> > >> https://github.com/zimbatm/rfcs/pull/1 . Please let me know what you
> > >> think.
> > >>
> > >> Cheers,
> > >> z
> > >>
> > >> ___
> > >> 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
> > >
> > >
> >
> >
> > --
> > Tomasz Czyż
> > ___
> > nix-dev mailing list
> > nix-dev@lists.science.uu.nl
> > http://lists.science.uu.nl/mailman/listinfo/nix-dev
>
> -- Rok Garbas, https://garbas.si
>
___
nix-dev mailing list
nix-dev@lists.science.uu.nl
http://lists.science.uu.nl/mailman/listinfo/nix-dev


Re: [Nix-dev] RFC for RFCs

2017-03-09 Thread Rok Garbas
I haven't read the latest changes in the RFC, but I welcome any more formal 
process for major changes. 

Thank you @zimbatm for pursuing this.


> On 09 March 2017 at 13:09 Tomasz Czyż  wrote:
> 
> 
> Thanks! Great stuff!
> 
> 2017-03-08 21:21 GMT+00:00 zimbatm :
> 
> > The RFC for RFCs is ready for a final round of review. Unless there are
> > major objections I would like to move forward with it, with the idea that
> > we can always improve the process with further RFCs.
> >
> > https://github.com/zimbatm/rfcs/pull/1
> >
> > On Sun, 12 Feb 2017 at 20:17 Maarten Hoogendoorn 
> > wrote:
> >
> >> Also see the notes that Arian took during the BoF session at FOSDEM:
> >>
> >> We had a very spontaneous NixOS discussion panel at FOSDEM.
> >>
> >> I took minutes.  I must say they're a bit rushy at times, so add stuff to
> >> it
> >> you think isn't clear or is lacking in content.  Thanks!
> >>
> >>
> >> http://piratepad.net/1nHg65LMQj
> >>
> >>
> >> 2017-02-12 19:46 GMT+01:00 Thomas Hunger :
> >>
> >> That would be amazing! I actually have an email sitting in my draft
> >> folder proposing Nix Enhancement Proposals (NEPs).
> >>
> >> IMHO one of the things we aren't very good at is getting larger changes
> >> merged or rejected. We attract a lot of smart people because Nix is pretty
> >> awesome. These smart people then do substantial work, submit a PR and the
> >> PR bitrots. This is highly demotivating.
> >>
> >> An RFC process would allow us to get to an accept / reject early on, with
> >> the expectation that accepted RFCs will be merged when the technical work
> >> is done.
> >>
> >> I'll add more specific comments to your PR.
> >>
> >> ~
> >>
> >> On 12 February 2017 at 15:12, zimbatm  wrote:
> >>
> >> Hi all,
> >>
> >> we discussed of introducing a RFC process during FOSDEM. The goal is to
> >> help discussion for large or controversial changes which typically grind to
> >> a halt.
> >>
> >> Here is an initial proposal based on the one from the Rust community:
> >> https://github.com/zimbatm/rfcs/pull/1 . Please let me know what you
> >> think.
> >>
> >> Cheers,
> >> z
> >>
> >> ___
> >> 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
> >
> >
> 
> 
> -- 
> Tomasz Czyż
> ___
> nix-dev mailing list
> nix-dev@lists.science.uu.nl
> http://lists.science.uu.nl/mailman/listinfo/nix-dev

-- Rok Garbas, https://garbas.si
___
nix-dev mailing list
nix-dev@lists.science.uu.nl
http://lists.science.uu.nl/mailman/listinfo/nix-dev


Re: [Nix-dev] RFC for RFCs

2017-03-09 Thread Tomasz Czyż
Thanks! Great stuff!

2017-03-08 21:21 GMT+00:00 zimbatm :

> The RFC for RFCs is ready for a final round of review. Unless there are
> major objections I would like to move forward with it, with the idea that
> we can always improve the process with further RFCs.
>
> https://github.com/zimbatm/rfcs/pull/1
>
> On Sun, 12 Feb 2017 at 20:17 Maarten Hoogendoorn 
> wrote:
>
>> Also see the notes that Arian took during the BoF session at FOSDEM:
>>
>> We had a very spontaneous NixOS discussion panel at FOSDEM.
>>
>> I took minutes.  I must say they're a bit rushy at times, so add stuff to
>> it
>> you think isn't clear or is lacking in content.  Thanks!
>>
>>
>> http://piratepad.net/1nHg65LMQj
>>
>>
>> 2017-02-12 19:46 GMT+01:00 Thomas Hunger :
>>
>> That would be amazing! I actually have an email sitting in my draft
>> folder proposing Nix Enhancement Proposals (NEPs).
>>
>> IMHO one of the things we aren't very good at is getting larger changes
>> merged or rejected. We attract a lot of smart people because Nix is pretty
>> awesome. These smart people then do substantial work, submit a PR and the
>> PR bitrots. This is highly demotivating.
>>
>> An RFC process would allow us to get to an accept / reject early on, with
>> the expectation that accepted RFCs will be merged when the technical work
>> is done.
>>
>> I'll add more specific comments to your PR.
>>
>> ~
>>
>> On 12 February 2017 at 15:12, zimbatm  wrote:
>>
>> Hi all,
>>
>> we discussed of introducing a RFC process during FOSDEM. The goal is to
>> help discussion for large or controversial changes which typically grind to
>> a halt.
>>
>> Here is an initial proposal based on the one from the Rust community:
>> https://github.com/zimbatm/rfcs/pull/1 . Please let me know what you
>> think.
>>
>> Cheers,
>> z
>>
>> ___
>> 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
>
>


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


Re: [Nix-dev] RFC for RFCs

2017-03-08 Thread zimbatm
The RFC for RFCs is ready for a final round of review. Unless there are
major objections I would like to move forward with it, with the idea that
we can always improve the process with further RFCs.

https://github.com/zimbatm/rfcs/pull/1

On Sun, 12 Feb 2017 at 20:17 Maarten Hoogendoorn  wrote:

> Also see the notes that Arian took during the BoF session at FOSDEM:
>
> We had a very spontaneous NixOS discussion panel at FOSDEM.
>
> I took minutes.  I must say they're a bit rushy at times, so add stuff to
> it
> you think isn't clear or is lacking in content.  Thanks!
>
>
> http://piratepad.net/1nHg65LMQj
>
>
> 2017-02-12 19:46 GMT+01:00 Thomas Hunger :
>
> That would be amazing! I actually have an email sitting in my draft folder
> proposing Nix Enhancement Proposals (NEPs).
>
> IMHO one of the things we aren't very good at is getting larger changes
> merged or rejected. We attract a lot of smart people because Nix is pretty
> awesome. These smart people then do substantial work, submit a PR and the
> PR bitrots. This is highly demotivating.
>
> An RFC process would allow us to get to an accept / reject early on, with
> the expectation that accepted RFCs will be merged when the technical work
> is done.
>
> I'll add more specific comments to your PR.
>
> ~
>
> On 12 February 2017 at 15:12, zimbatm  wrote:
>
> Hi all,
>
> we discussed of introducing a RFC process during FOSDEM. The goal is to
> help discussion for large or controversial changes which typically grind to
> a halt.
>
> Here is an initial proposal based on the one from the Rust community:
> https://github.com/zimbatm/rfcs/pull/1 . Please let me know what you
> think.
>
> Cheers,
> z
>
> ___
> 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] RFC for RFCs

2017-02-12 Thread Maarten Hoogendoorn
Also see the notes that Arian took during the BoF session at FOSDEM:

We had a very spontaneous NixOS discussion panel at FOSDEM.
>
> I took minutes.  I must say they're a bit rushy at times, so add stuff to
> it
> you think isn't clear or is lacking in content.  Thanks!
>
>
> http://piratepad.net/1nHg65LMQj
>

2017-02-12 19:46 GMT+01:00 Thomas Hunger :

> That would be amazing! I actually have an email sitting in my draft folder
> proposing Nix Enhancement Proposals (NEPs).
>
> IMHO one of the things we aren't very good at is getting larger changes
> merged or rejected. We attract a lot of smart people because Nix is pretty
> awesome. These smart people then do substantial work, submit a PR and the
> PR bitrots. This is highly demotivating.
>
> An RFC process would allow us to get to an accept / reject early on, with
> the expectation that accepted RFCs will be merged when the technical work
> is done.
>
> I'll add more specific comments to your PR.
>
> ~
>
> On 12 February 2017 at 15:12, zimbatm  wrote:
>
>> Hi all,
>>
>> we discussed of introducing a RFC process during FOSDEM. The goal is to
>> help discussion for large or controversial changes which typically grind to
>> a halt.
>>
>> Here is an initial proposal based on the one from the Rust community:
>> https://github.com/zimbatm/rfcs/pull/1 . Please let me know what you
>> think.
>>
>> Cheers,
>> z
>>
>> ___
>> 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] RFC for RFCs

2017-02-12 Thread Thomas Hunger
That would be amazing! I actually have an email sitting in my draft folder
proposing Nix Enhancement Proposals (NEPs).

IMHO one of the things we aren't very good at is getting larger changes
merged or rejected. We attract a lot of smart people because Nix is pretty
awesome. These smart people then do substantial work, submit a PR and the
PR bitrots. This is highly demotivating.

An RFC process would allow us to get to an accept / reject early on, with
the expectation that accepted RFCs will be merged when the technical work
is done.

I'll add more specific comments to your PR.

~

On 12 February 2017 at 15:12, zimbatm  wrote:

> Hi all,
>
> we discussed of introducing a RFC process during FOSDEM. The goal is to
> help discussion for large or controversial changes which typically grind to
> a halt.
>
> Here is an initial proposal based on the one from the Rust community:
> https://github.com/zimbatm/rfcs/pull/1 . Please let me know what you
> think.
>
> Cheers,
> z
>
> ___
> 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] RFC for RFCs

2017-02-12 Thread zimbatm
Hi all,

we discussed of introducing a RFC process during FOSDEM. The goal is to
help discussion for large or controversial changes which typically grind to
a halt.

Here is an initial proposal based on the one from the Rust community:
https://github.com/zimbatm/rfcs/pull/1 . Please let me know what you think.

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