!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
@roberthensing:matrix.orgRobert Hensing (roberth)Oh right, didn't realise time is that fast. Yeah 1 day is definitely too short20:01:03
@infinisil:matrix.orginfinisilAlso, I don't really want to have to deal with changing this aspect of the RFC at this hour, and the potential fallout for not canceling FCP for such a change20:01:36
@roberthensing:matrix.orgRobert Hensing (roberth)Yeah, there's no hurry20:01:55
@infinisil:matrix.orginfinisilI'll make a short comment linking to this Matrix thread and that FCP is canceled for now (which I should be allowed to do as the author :P)20:02:33
@k900:0upti.meK900I just want to shout out the fact that the FCP ended up working 20:05:10
@k900:0upti.meK900So we are doing something right 20:05:39
@piegames:matrix.org@piegames:matrix.org
In reply to @k900:0upti.me
I just want to shout out the fact that the FCP ended up working
Honestly, I'm not that happy with how it went. Will write something in the meta-RFC Discourse thread tomorrow or so
20:08:51
@infinisil:matrix.orginfinisil K900: I mean, it ended up with just bikeshedding over one of the simplest aspects of the RFC, while the meat of the RFC was left without any comments 😅 20:09:15
@k900:0upti.meK900I mean, I definitely wish it happened earlier 20:09:31
@infinisil:matrix.orginfinisilDid the FCP work or distract from more important parts?20:09:33
@k900:0upti.meK900But I think it did work20:09:46
@piegames:matrix.org@piegames:matrix.orgAlso, I'd like to have an RFC room even for RFCs from tge Architecture team. Not sure if it makes sense for 140 this late, bit for all the others20:09:47
@k900:0upti.meK900I don't think it's important whether the issue is "important" or not20:10:11
@infinisil:matrix.orginfinisil piegames: Was there a problem with using this room? 20:10:23
@k900:0upti.meK900If people were willing to call off the FCP over it, it's important to them 20:10:24
@piegames:matrix.org@piegames:matrix.org
In reply to @k900:0upti.me
I mean, I definitely wish it happened earlier
That's my main complaint, yeah. Having two weeks of almost silence and then on the last day suddenly it explodes
20:10:41
@infinisil:matrix.orginfinisilEh I don't think that's a problem, FCP is 10 days, people are busy, you can complain at any time20:11:09
@infinisil:matrix.orginfinisil * Eh I don't think that's a problem, FCP is 10 days, people are busy, one can complain at any time20:11:34
@piegames:matrix.org@piegames:matrix.org
In reply to @infinisil:matrix.org
piegames: Was there a problem with using this room?
sy's insecurity reminded me of this. But also separation of concerns, people might want to follow one topic but not the other
20:11:49
@infinisil:matrix.orginfinisilFair enough. I don't think it's a big problem in this specific case since the RFC is the only thing that's been going on for a while20:12:42
@piegames:matrix.org@piegames:matrix.orgYes. But for the future20:13:39
@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

Show newer messages


Back to Room ListRoom Version: 9