[Nix-dev] Re: new possible movement to git (?)

[Lluís Batlle i Rossell]

On Tue, Aug 30, 2011 at 08:12:33PM +0400, Michael Raskin wrote:
> >Under those circumstances, I don't see how we could agree, so I suggest
> >we agree to disagree.
> 
> Well, I am even more unconvinced - based on my experience with updates,
> I would prefer stdenv-updates to be unified branch even for the process
> of fixing the packages. Because easy things are just done and hard 
> things are - in my experience with packaging - usually easy to trace 
> back to single dependency and hard to fix anyway.

I think I'm with Michael about having stdenv-updates. I like the current process
of updating stdenv pieces, and at some point, decide on stabilisation, freeze
updates, and fix any problems there may be. Before stabilisation, we may have
some packages (or even platforms) not working, but still a big part working for
others to play with stdenv.

This does not mean that people may want to branch from stdenv-updates to fix or
update some pieces, but I'd have hydra busy building only stdenv-updates, for
example. Just to have a single point where people caring about stdenv can take a
look and see the status, and what can be done.