Nixpkgs Architecture Team | 232 Members | |
| https://github.com/nixpkgs-architecture, weekly public meetings on Wednesday 15:00-16:00 UTC at https://meet.jit.si/nixpkgs-architecture | 53 Servers |
| Sender | Message | Time |
|---|---|---|
| 9 Jun 2023 | ||
clearly I pulled by-name from someone else's brain without reading anything | 20:00:09 | |
| I wouldn't think so. The naming is an integral part of it, and this potentially better alternative was just talked about for like the past hour, not enough time for the community to take another look at the proposal until FCP ends (tomorrow..) | 20:00:24 | |
| Oh right, didn't realise time is that fast. Yeah 1 day is definitely too short | 20:01:03 | |
| Also, 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 change | 20:01:36 | |
| Yeah, there's no hurry | 20:01:55 | |
| I'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 | |
| I just want to shout out the fact that the FCP ended up working | 20:05:10 | |
| So we are doing something right | 20:05:39 | |
In reply to @k900:0upti.meHonestly, I'm not that happy with how it went. Will write something in the meta-RFC Discourse thread tomorrow or so | 20:08:51 | |
| 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 | |
| I mean, I definitely wish it happened earlier | 20:09:31 | |
| Did the FCP work or distract from more important parts? | 20:09:33 | |
| But I think it did work | 20:09:46 | |
| Also, 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 others | 20:09:47 | |
| I don't think it's important whether the issue is "important" or not | 20:10:11 | |
| piegames: Was there a problem with using this room? | 20:10:23 | |
| If people were willing to call off the FCP over it, it's important to them | 20:10:24 | |
In reply to @k900:0upti.meThat's my main complaint, yeah. Having two weeks of almost silence and then on the last day suddenly it explodes | 20:10:41 | |
| Eh I don't think that's a problem, FCP is 10 days, people are busy, you can complain at any time | 20:11:09 | |
| * Eh I don't think that's a problem, FCP is 10 days, people are busy, one can complain at any time | 20:11:34 | |
In reply to @infinisil:matrix.orgsy'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 | |
| Fair 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 while | 20:12:42 | |
| Yes. But for the future | 20:13:39 | |
| 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 | |
| So that works out :) | 20:14:51 | |
| 21:06:58 | ||
| 10 Jun 2023 | ||
In reply to @piegames: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 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 | |
| * 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 | |
| The 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 | |
| Brainstorming some more: What about `unsorted` or `uncategorized`? | 17:35:38 | |