| 22 Apr 2025 |
 emily | I do think that any revision should take into account use on the NixOS infra as a criterion | 17:20:23 |
| emily | since as long as we need to run aarch64-darwin machines to build anything, there will be expectations relating to it regardless of formal tier | 17:20:51 |
 Tristan Ross | In reply to @emilazy:matrix.org
I do think that any revision should take into account use on the NixOS infra as a criterion Yes, that's kinda why Ofborg + Hydra is mentioned | 17:24:16 |
| Tristan Ross | Having Ofborg support is kinda like a baseline for Hydra. It means we do have machines and some sort of CI. | 17:24:51 |
 Alyssa Ross | I kind of feel that to be in whatever the top tier is it should be possible for contributors to reproduce issues on that platform — in a VM or cross is fine, but having to obtain a license for a proprietary OS is not. | 17:29:01 |
| Alyssa Ross | Community builder mitigates this to an extent but isn't open to everyone and I'm not sure if it also comes with EULA obligations on its users. | 17:29:35 |
| Alyssa Ross | Like sometimes it's just not really fair to expect contributors to do things with Darwin in the way we can for Linux. | 17:30:14 |
| emily | I don't think that would be the case if half of all users and contributors were on Darwin though | 17:30:46 |
| Alyssa Ross | The fact that the platform can break underneath us is also a concern for calling things "Tier 1", IMO. | 17:30:51 |
| Tristan Ross | For Darwin, I'd say it's hard to say | 17:30:50 |
| emily | which is sort of what the tier 1 description implies | 17:31:02 |
| emily | and will probably never happen, but if we're talking hyphtheticals | 17:31:21 |
| Alyssa Ross | In reply to @emilazy:matrix.org
I don't think that would be the case if half of all users and contributors were on Darwin though What specifically? | 17:31:41 |
| emily | In reply to @qyliss:fairydust.space
What specifically? as in, if we had that critical mass then "block indefinitely on Darwin issues" wouldn't imply expecting Linux users to diagnose/solve things, it'd just imply the Darwin half of the project needing to step in. which would be untenable at present precisely because it's not half | 17:33:32 |
| Alyssa Ross | I think that misses that Darwin users can work on Linux stuff too, but not necessarily the other way around. | 17:34:15 |
| emily | I think plenty of critical Linux components can break from underneath us in the same way too (but admittedly we have much more of a voice there) | 17:34:20 |
| Alyssa Ross | I don't think they can — only the kernel really. | 17:34:37 |
| emily | In reply to @qyliss:fairydust.space
I think that misses that Darwin users can work on Linux stuff too, but not necessarily the other way around. well, you can imagine a Darwin user with an ideological opposition to running a GPL kernel or something. | 17:34:52 |
| Alyssa Ross | Because apart from the kernel we're pure on Linux. | 17:34:59 |
| Alyssa Ross | In reply to @emilazy:matrix.org
well, you can imagine a Darwin user with an ideological opposition to running a GPL kernel or something. Sure, but do we want to treat that the same way? | 17:35:17 |
| emily | (also graphics drivers and a host of runtime services. but I more meant that insofar as you can hold back a ruinous core system update on NixOS you can also just not support the new macOS yet. but I don't claim the two situations are wholly analogous) | 17:36:24 |
| emily | In reply to @qyliss:fairydust.space
Sure, but do we want to treat that the same way? I don't know, but I think there are gradations. I don't think tier 1 Darwin is going to happen any time soon, but e.g. consider that full participation in the infra team is incompatible with unwillingness to use Darwin even at the current tier. | 17:37:58 |
| emily | hence use on NixOS infra really being the biggest dividing line in my eyes | 17:38:17 |
| emily | in practice there are already Darwin contributors who can't fix issues on Linux their contributions cause because of lack of knowledge and desire and the result is that those get blocked on a Linux person taking a look. since we have so many Linux contributors I haven't perceived this as being much of a burden | 17:39:53 |
| emily | I do also think that in practice the objection most Linux contributors have to Darwin stuff is that they don't use it and therefore don't care, and they they don't know anything about it, rather than unwillingness to use the community builder or similar. Tier 1 FreeBSD or Genode or whatever would face comparable obstacles | 17:42:06 |
| Tristan Ross | I think in spirit we could consider Darwin "tier 1" but practically, it's tier 2. | 17:45:09 |
| emily | I think it's tier 2 in spirit too. and almost tier 3 for a while | 17:45:27 |
| Tristan Ross | Oh | 17:45:40 |
| emily | I'm just talking about a world where Nix on Darwin explodes in popularity and quality | 17:45:44 |
| emily | also, consider the case where an issue in Rust is blocking for Linux. to interact with the Rust project to fix it will involve their support tiers, which include proprietary platforms | 17:46:05 |
