!djTaTBQyWEPRQxrPTb:nixos.org

Nixpkgs Architecture Team

228 Members
https://github.com/nixpkgs-architecture, weekly public meetings on Wednesday 15:00-16:00 UTC at https://meet.jit.si/nixpkgs-architecture53 Servers

Load older messages


SenderMessageTime
9 Jun 2023
@infinisil:matrix.orginfinisil I guess the future of the NAT is working groups, for which we already create specific separate channels (the only current working group going on is #wg-pkgs-modules:matrix.org) 20:14:46
@infinisil:matrix.orginfinisilSo that works out :)20:14:51
@adam:valkor.net@adam:valkor.net joined the room.21:06:58
10 Jun 2023
@syphoxy:matrix.org@syphoxy:matrix.org
In reply to @piegames:matrix.org
sy's insecurity reminded me of this. But also separation of concerns, people might want to follow one topic but not the other

strictly speaking, my insecurity comes from a place of wanting to respect hierarchy and responsibility. even if there were a separate RFC room, I would have had the same apprehension. personally speaking, I'm still very new to Nix/NixOS and moreover I've never explicitly expressed interest to anyone about wanting to contribute to the shape and structure of the project. I wanted to respect the folks who have already devoted a lot of time thinking about the problem, have devoted a lot of time discussing the problem, and I wanted to respect those who have stood up to be personally named and responsible for solving this problem.

additionally, I know that some aspects of this RFC were a little protracted and maybe even a little heated. I also have no interest in contributing to the bikeshedding component in this RFC. I understand that names are often a source of trouble and that a well intentioned decision could lead to unintended consequences which could be difficult to revert or even potentially infeasible to revert so I sympathize with and respect the fact that so much time has been spent on the issue.

I don't speak for anyone else when I say this, of course. this is just how I feel and how I feel is not the result of what the Nix/NixOS project has suggested to me in any way. the community has been very kind and welcoming and I respect all of you and I also feel respected.

as for whether having separate rooms for discussing separate topics is a good thing, I think it can be. I think it can make discovery of discussion also more difficult. it would probably be useful to have a way to remind folks of ongoing discussions in the main channel as a way of inviting people to join on conversations they care about. case in point: I didn't even know this room existed until I saw the Summer of Nix lecture.

one final comment I have on the RFC though, and I'm sorry to repeat my point again, but I do think this RFC has been made more difficult than it should have been because it has been decided that Nixpkgs should work around GitHub's UI/UX issues. I know GitHub is an important tool for the Nix/NixOS community but I do not think that the engineering and design of Nix/NixOS should be subject to arbitrary peculiarities of a UI.

13:10:35
@syphoxy:matrix.org@syphoxy:matrix.org *

strictly speaking, my insecurity comes from a place of wanting to respect hierarchy and responsibility. even if there were a separate RFC room, I would have had the same apprehension. personally speaking, I'm still very new to Nix/NixOS and moreover I've never explicitly expressed interest to anyone about wanting to contribute to the shape and structure of the project. I wanted to respect the folks who have already devoted a lot of time thinking about the problem, have devoted a lot of time discussing the problem, and I wanted to respect those who have stood up to be personally named and responsible for solving this problem.

additionally, I know that some aspects of this RFC were a little protracted and maybe even a little heated. I also have no interest in contributing to the bikeshedding component in this RFC. I understand that names are often a source of trouble and that a well intentioned decision could lead to unintended consequences which could be difficult to revert or even potentially infeasible to revert so I sympathize with and respect the fact that so much time has been spent on the issue.

I don't speak for anyone else when I say this, of course. this is just how I feel and how I feel is not the result of what the Nix/NixOS project has suggested to me in any way. the community has been very kind and welcoming and I respect all of you and I also feel respected.

as for whether having separate rooms for discussing separate topics is a good thing, I think it can be. I think it can make discovery of discussion also more difficult. it would probably be useful to have a way to remind folks of ongoing discussions in the main channel as a way of inviting people to join on conversations they care about. case in point: I didn't even know this room existed until I saw the Summer of Nix lecture.

one final comment I have on the RFC though, and I'm sorry to repeat my point, but I do think this RFC has been made more difficult than it should have been because it has been decided that Nixpkgs should work around GitHub's UI/UX issues. I know GitHub is an important tool for the Nix/NixOS community but I do not think that the engineering and design of Nix/NixOS should be subject to arbitrary peculiarities of a UI.

13:35:10
@piegames:matrix.org@piegames:matrix.orgThe GitHub limit of 1000 files is admittedly a bit arbitrary, but also a lot of other software handles folders with many items poorly (mostly in terms of performance degradation). Therefore I don't think putting everything into one flat folder would be a good idea, even when putting GitHub aside.14:05:27
@piegames:matrix.org@piegames:matrix.orgBrainstorming some more: What about `unsorted` or `uncategorized`?17:35:38
@piegames:matrix.org@piegames:matrix.orgAbout `by-name`: to me it invokes the association of `/dev/by-*`, which has the caveat that ours is not a "view" onto the package set and therefore not exhaustive. But in the end it is not worse than unit so idc too much17:37:35
@piegames:matrix.org@piegames:matrix.org
In reply to @piegames:matrix.org
Brainstorming some more: What about unsorted or uncategorized?
What about _? :D
I mean, it has no intrinsic meaning yet conveys the idea of "we decided to move some packages here" quite well
17:38:52
@roberthensing:matrix.orgRobert Hensing (roberth) _ conveys nothing at best. Normally we only use it for "I don't want to name this because it's not used here" 19:01:00
@roberthensing:matrix.orgRobert Hensing (roberth) un* is slightly better than no information at all, but naming something after what it isn't isn't super helpful 19:02:33
@roberthensing:matrix.orgRobert Hensing (roberth) we could call nixpkgs unsingular 19:03:51
11 Jun 2023
@piegames:matrix.org@piegames:matrix.org I'd like to hear if there are any people strongly opposing by-name, especially from those who didn't like unit 10:08:29
@piegames:matrix.org@piegames:matrix.orgAlso, a meeting might be a good idea10:08:38
@k900:0upti.meK900 I don't like unit and don't mind by-name FWIW 10:09:18
@piegames:matrix.org@piegames:matrix.org
In reply to @piegames:matrix.org
What about _? :D
I mean, it has no intrinsic meaning yet conveys the idea of "we decided to move some packages here" quite well
infinisil: Do you know who suggested pkgs/_ first? Because it looks like you added this to the RFC before my message in here, and I don't see any force-pushes either
10:14:28
@syphoxy:matrix.org@syphoxy:matrix.org it was K900 10:15:21
@k900:0upti.meK900Nope10:15:27
@k900:0upti.meK900Wasn't me actually10:15:30
@syphoxy:matrix.org@syphoxy:matrix.orgoh10:15:31
@hexa:lossy.networkhexaby-what-else tho? 😄10:15:37
@k900:0upti.meK900It was on the RFC before me I believe10:15:38
@hexa:lossy.networkhexaby-prefix?10:15:40
@k900:0upti.meK900 by-unit 10:15:47
@piegames:matrix.org@piegames:matrix.org
In reply to @k900:0upti.me
Nope
I understand, I wouldn't want to take credit for this either :p
10:15:51
@k900:0upti.meK900 Actually, _by-unit 10:15:54
@hexa:lossy.networkhexa__no?10:16:00
@piegames:matrix.org@piegames:matrix.org
In reply to @k900:0upti.me
Actually, _by-unit
The ultimate compromise
10:16:15
@hexa:lossy.networkhexa
In reply to @piegames:matrix.org
The ultimate compromise
the worst of all choices then? 😄
10:16:32
@whentze:matrix.orgWanja HentzeI don't know what unit means and by this point I'm afraid to ask10:16:33

Show newer messages


Back to Room ListRoom Version: 9