!djTaTBQyWEPRQxrPTb:nixos.org

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-architecture53 Servers

Load older messages


SenderMessageTime
6 Jun 2023
@infinisil:matrix.orginfinisil Robert Hensing (roberth): Could you lead the NAT meeting on 27 June? I'll be on vacation then 14:17:58
@roberthensing:matrix.orgRobert Hensing (roberth) infinisil sgtm 👍 15:02:27
@infinisil:matrix.orginfinisil Robert Hensing (roberth): Thanks! https://github.com/nixpkgs-architecture/.github/blob/master/hosting.md should explain everything. Can you go through the one-time setup there? 15:34:39
9 Jun 2023
@piegames:matrix.org@piegames:matrix.orgSo, what do we do with RFC 140?16:17:04
@piegames:matrix.org@piegames:matrix.org Also infinisil if you want to update the alternatives section with the new ideas and arguments that came up during FCP (mainly that discussion thread with QuantenZitrone), now would be a good time 16:18:19
@infinisil:matrix.orginfinisil piegames: Yeah I'll do it this evening 16:19:10
@infinisil:matrix.orginfinisil

piegames: So, the rfc process doesn't state who decides over whether the FCP needs to be cancelled:

In most cases, the FCP period is quiet, and the RFC is either merged or closed. However, sometimes substantial new arguments or ideas are raised, the FCP is canceled, and the RFC goes back into development mode.

17:11:45
@hexa:lossy.networkhexaI would expect the shepherd team to acknowledge that17:12:21
@infinisil:matrix.orginfinisilI think it should definitely be the shepherd team, as the steering committee shouldn't be involved in deciding RFCs17:12:24
@hexa:lossy.networkhexaalso probably not a good time to mention the issue of how badly legacyPackages was named?17:14:11
@hexa:lossy.networkhexanaming things is bloody hard 😄 17:14:38
@infinisil:matrix.orginfinisil hexa: Is this rhetorical? Because that was just mentioned! See https://github.com/NixOS/rfcs/pull/140#issuecomment-1584882324 17:15:01
@hexa:lossy.networkhexauh, yes, it was rhetorical17:15:18
@hexa:lossy.networkhexaI have not followed up on the thread, good that you mentioned it ig 🙂17:15:41
@infinisil:matrix.orginfinisil hexa: The "not" in your sentence confused me a bit, I wasn't sure if you're saying it is a bad time and I shouldn't have brought it up again, or if it's a good time to bring it up :P 17:17:19
@hexa:lossy.networkhexaI mean, him choosing legacyPackages was much more confusing than either units or shards17:17:42
@hexa:lossy.networkhexaso I don't get what the fuss is about17:17:57
@piegames:matrix.org@piegames:matrix.org
In reply to @infinisil:matrix.org

piegames: So, the rfc process doesn't state who decides over whether the FCP needs to be cancelled:

In most cases, the FCP period is quiet, and the RFC is either merged or closed. However, sometimes substantial new arguments or ideas are raised, the FCP is canceled, and the RFC goes back into development mode.

Ack. I'm leaning on the "sometimes substantial new arguments", because while the opposition has been in parts strong, I'd argue that being for a proposal but against a name in it is not substantial
17:20:05
@infinisil:matrix.orginfinisil phaer: j-k: growpotkin ( Alex Ameen ): piegames: As shepherds of RFC 140, do any of you think niksnut's recent criticism is a substantial new argument that requires canceling FCP and potentially changing the RFC? 17:20:07
@piegames:matrix.org@piegames:matrix.orgHa, good timing ^^ IMO it is neither new nor substantial17:20:37
@niksnut:matrix.orgEelcoI don't think it requires cancelling the FCP17:21:53
@niksnut:matrix.orgEelcoAs long as people don't think that RFC saying "pkgs/unit" can be used as a blanket override of any objections on an eventual PR17:27:42
@niksnut:matrix.orgEelco1 case of bad naming doesn't justify more bad naming. Quite the opposite.17:28:41
@hexa:lossy.networkhexacertainly, to me sharding or partitioning captures the meaning better than unit17:29:45
@k900:0upti.meK900I wasn't 100% following the conversation17:30:14
@k900:0upti.meK900 But was pkgs/simple proposed? 17:30:26
@hexa:lossy.networkhexacan you elaborate on the meaning?17:30:53
@hexa:lossy.networkhexa * can you elaborate on the meaning of simple in that context?17:31:06
@infinisil:matrix.orginfinisil

niksnut: The point of RFC's is to decide controversial things. If somebody has objections, now's the time to raise them. Once the RFC is accepted it's too late. I quote the RFC Readme:

In general though this means that the implementation will be merged as long as there are no substantial technical objections to the implementation.

17:31:23
@k900:0upti.meK900Simple as in simple package paths, also simple as in simple to add17:31:28

Show newer messages


Back to Room ListRoom Version: 9