| 27 May 2022 |
 Linux Hackerman | Oh wait | 15:19:31 |
| Linux Hackerman | the same applies to nodeNixpkgs. | 15:19:36 |
 hexa | oh, silly me. | 15:20:21 |
| hexa | yep, finally error messages that are reasonable | 15:21:39 |
| hexa | oh yeah, the secrets migration is going to be great 😄 | 15:29:15 |
 Zhaofeng Li | In reply to @blaggacao:matrix.org
In my opinion, maintaining legacy nix support in-tree is a bit of a stretch and reduces the ability to innovate. Maby there can be a 2-tree solution that is not 100% mutually compatible . For swappable eval I'll think about it in a bit. However, support for normal Nix must be maintained in Colmena. It is flakes that is actually experimental. | 18:17:23 |
 David Arnold (blaggacao) | There is a nice german word: "Deutungshoheit". | 23:51:48 |
| David Arnold (blaggacao) | And that thing is shifting, and can't be contained by formalities. | 23:52:08 |
| David Arnold (blaggacao) | (w.r.t. flakes 🙃) | 23:52:17 |
| 28 May 2022 |
| David Arnold (blaggacao) | Zhaofeng Li: I hope this PR is comparatively uncontroversial: https://github.com/zhaofengli/colmena/pull/89 -- it's pure (hopefully) side-effect free refactoring. | 00:05:04 |
| 30 May 2022 |
 Wanja Hentze | Stable Nix support is good for people migrating from nixops/morph if nothing else | 09:19:15 |
| Wanja Hentze | if this was dropped, migration would mean those would have to switch deployment tool and move to flakes mode in one swoop, there is no smooth incremental path | 09:20:20 |
| Wanja Hentze | Even if you're a flake maximalist, I think there is merit in this. Declaring the existing stable way "legacy", not providing a smooth upgrade path and burning bridges is not how you get everyone to adopt it, that's how you get IPv6 :P | 10:03:47 |
| David Arnold (blaggacao) | To clarify, I don't think somebody implied to drop classical nix support. The suggestion had been to untangle the code path for maintainability. The custom eval I posted quite clearly shows what that can mean. | 14:19:54 |
| David Arnold (blaggacao) | * To clarify, I don't think somebody implied to drop classical `nix` support. The suggestion had been to untangle the code path for maintainability. The custom eval I posted quite clearly shows what that can mean in practice. | 14:20:14 |
| David Arnold (blaggacao) | I have the impression, that actually the untangling would be probably contained to src/nix/hive as the nix eval interface of colmena. | 14:24:37 |
| David Arnold (blaggacao) | * I have the impression, that actually the untangling would be contained to `src/nix/hive` as the `nix` eval interface of colmena. | 14:24:49 |
| 1 Jun 2022 |
|  Tim joined the room. | 13:17:26 |
| 3 Jun 2022 |
|  tpw_rules joined the room. | 03:50:51 |
| tpw_rules | hi, i was wondering if there were public examples of real colmena deployments anyone wanted to share. how do you handle the stuff that would ordinarily go in hardware-configuration.nix, i.e. usually partitioning? | 03:51:28 |
| tpw_rules | i've been doing research in preparation to write my own deployment tool which is designed for offline hosts | 03:52:16 |
 Buckley | i put my partitions right in the normal configuration | 03:52:39 |
| tpw_rules | do you specify them by ID still? | 03:52:50 |
| tpw_rules | or just sda1 etc? | 03:52:55 |
| Buckley | i generally use UUIDs unless i am reasonably sure the machine will only ever have one disk attached to it. eg, VMs | 03:53:26 |
| tpw_rules | what do you do if you need to reformat the machine? just update the config's uuids? | 03:53:43 |
| Buckley | yep | 03:53:51 |
| tpw_rules | simple enough | 03:53:58 |
| Buckley | if you dont like either one of those, partlabels also exist | 03:54:02 |
| tpw_rules | that is true | 03:54:27 |
