| 31 Jul 2025 |
 emily | I think there is some value to the basic highest-level idea of lazy trees over -f . | 14:20:35 |
| emily | but I agree that proper VFS is the way | 14:20:39 |
| emily | you do still run into questions around NAR hashing and so on | 14:20:56 |
 WeetHet | Is it impossible to get rid of NAR hashes altogether and just have a compat layer as snix does? | 14:23:31 |
| WeetHet | Or even just use snix-store altogether | 14:25:36 |
| emily | the problem is that it is exposed to the language | 14:26:24 |
| WeetHet | https://blog.replit.com/tvix-store | 14:27:06 |
 raitobezarius | having a compat layer is very possible but all paths converges to Rome: technical debt needs to be paid to get there | 14:27:39 |
| raitobezarius | and any technical debt we predict ends up being 30x | 14:27:52 |
| WeetHet | In reply to @raitobezarius:matrix.org
having a compat layer is very possible but all paths converges to Rome: technical debt needs to be paid to get there Is there any tracker/doc on the current state of technical debt? | 14:39:54 |
| raitobezarius | none | 14:40:22 |
| raitobezarius | except issues in lix tracker | 14:40:28 |
| raitobezarius | but it doesn't cover fully the scope | 14:40:32 |
| raitobezarius | the code is the most accurate first approximation of the technical debt | 14:40:42 |
| raitobezarius | it's only an approximation because there's hidden things that cannot be seen by understanding the code well :^) | 14:40:59 |
| emily | raitobezarius: do you remember why you try to explicitly create the global temporary directory in fd35e86fc5a7f3c13512a12e31145640cde442b3? no other code path does it, so I think having a nonexistent temp-dir is broken anyway | 17:29:56 |
| emily | ah probably to match the createDirs on the build-dir path | 17:30:59 |
| raitobezarius | yes | 17:31:15 |
| emily | but that was not present before all this churn I think | 17:31:49 |
| emily | we only manage creating the dir in there because now it's owned by the daemon | 17:31:58 |
| emily | and nothing else creates it on Darwin | 17:32:02 |
| raitobezarius | what is your realization? | 17:33:23 |
| raitobezarius | like what do you think should be the right behavior? | 17:33:33 |
| emily | I just wanted to check I am not breaking anything by removing the call | 17:33:52 |
| emily | which I think I have now satisfied myself by | 17:33:59 |
| emily | raitobezarius: do you expect buildDirOverride to be used elsewhere in future? it is currently set and consumed only in one function and all the uses/sets are NOPs | 17:39:20 |
| raitobezarius | yeah | 17:39:39 |
| emily | is the idea that it will be set from outside the worker? or only consumed outside of it? | 17:40:11 |
| emily | I am having trouble following the intent | 17:40:16 |
| emily | it's also used inconsistently already | 17:43:12 |
