[Nix-dev] bash updates

[Peter Simons]

Hi Michael,

 > It is percieved as established practice in the project. I agree
 > with Ludo's statement and has stated this explicitly quite
 > recently which makes "we" technically correct, but that's not the
 > point.

you are right, whether Ludo's use of "we" is technically correct or not
is besides the point. The point is that I don't know what he intents to
say. I cannot respond to his article, because I don't understand it.


 > Previously, we saw the same approach (everything causing stdenv
 > rebuild gets merged at once) followed by niksnut and viric. And
 > stdenv updates not following this practice were rolled back
 > (sometimes by niksnut).

Yes, I am aware of these facts. I intend to merge only those parts of
stdenv-updates that are stable. I do not intend to break 'trunk' by
performing a wild west merge. Furthermore, you are absolutely welcome to
contribute fixes and testing to stdenv-updates right now! Please help us
make sure that the branch is in great state so that it's in great shape
for the merge.


 > Merge has significant one-time build overhead, so it doesn't occur
 > without near-consensus. Ludo stated some conditions for merge. So,
 > until he either finishes ensuring that these conditions are met or
 > explicitly gives up, merging stdenv-updates branch is a bad idea.

Well, if that is what Ludo meant to say, then I'll be glad, because that
means there is no problem at all! Ludo and anyone else is more than
welcome to commit any fixes and updates to stdenv-updates that he or she
likes. I am all for it!

Take care,
Peter