[Nix-dev] [Nix-commits] SVN commit: nix - r30127 - innixos/trunk/modules:config installer/cd-dvdinstaller/generations-dir installer/toolsinstaller/tools/nixos-deploy-networkmisc security services/miscservices/monito...

[Marc Weber]

Shea: I feel your pain. That's one of the reasons why I forked - cause
people revert patches (which feel randomly to authors) without even
trying to discuss an issue enough so that its impossible to fix the
issue causing the revert. This may lead to depression. Happened to me 
trying to implement the "num-cores" patch.

Peter: you should talk about the nix version you used, architecture and
your configuration.nix (unless its top secret).

If Peter had taken care he would have tried providing as much info
required to reproduce your info - and he would have waited a couple of
hours asking you to resolve the issue. That you've been very responsive
seems obvious to me.
Which info is required?
- configuration.nix
- nix revision
- architecture
- (and as M.R noted NIX_REMOTE setting)

Also reverting 3 patches because a one line patch is said to cause this
issue ... can be done - but in the end its going to produce a lot of
noise nobody wants to read in commit logs (sorry - my 2 cents).

M.R already noted that its easy "to get back the old revision" - So let
me add: "Its easy to checkout the old revision until the issue is
resolved" which should be done as fast as possible.

So Peter sending to the mailinglist should have made enough people be
aware of the issue - and should have been enough for a couple of hours
(maybe up to 24h). I don't expect that many people updating their
systems every couple of hours. So the impact on the community would not
have been that big if trunk was broken for some hours.

That's why there are mailinglists and chat rooms.

Anyway - why do people feel that strong about trunk? Is it because they
have important systems which must run all day ? Such as "spawning
emergency systems on amazon"? Then it should be them maintaining a
"stable" branch - because that's the only way to ensure that their
systems keep working - them depending on "trunk" would be insane anyway.

And such a "stable" branch can be defined "stable" by "all test cases
pass". That would make lot's of sense - if something breaks another test
case should eventually be added.

BTW: Should we revert all patches on the git kernel tree because BTRFS
broke (causing the system to hang and become slower ?).

Marc Weber