[Nix-dev] Again: Why don't these people have commit access

Matthias Beyer mail at beyermatthias.de
Mon Jan 19 22:42:29 CET 2015

On 19-01-2015 22:26:00, Georges Dubus wrote:
>    I'm under the impression that none of the proposal inspired by outside
>    project seem to fit NixOS, because NixOS is a very different project : it
>    is a huge and complex linux distro.
>    The first consequence is that it is impossible to have expert on each part
>    on NixOS, because each tiny part requires a specific expertise. To work on
>    python packaging, you have to be a python developer, to work on kde
>    packaging, you have to be involved in the kde community, and to work on
>    libreoffice packaging you have to be knowledgeable on how libreoffice is
>    built (and very patient). I reckon you'll find much people who are
>    confident enough to review a change on a specific part on NixOS than you'd
>    find in another project.

That's indeed a problem I've not thought about yet. I see that NixOS
is a complex distro and I see that we are short in man power, so I
guess my proposal does not fit that well.

>    Secondly, the scope of the project is so huge that checking nothing is
>    broken takes forever. I most projects, you expect contributors to run the
>    tests and make sure nothing breaks, but in NixOS, that's much harder. We
>    make travis timeout, and we do not have enough resources to build a tight
>    CI that tests every pull request before merging it.

My point on this part was not that nothing breaks, but that no new
packages break. Or at least no trivial new packages. For example, I
just packaged "ctodo", which is almost dependency-less. These kind of
stuff really should not break and I guess it is fairly secure to (kind
of) "out source" that from github, as it generates noise in the repo.

>    Finally, even the definition of "broken" is more blurry than in other
>    projets. We usually have a few hundreds failing evaluation in hydra, and
>    the number is quite stable (much fewer than we used to have before the ZHF
>    project, though). Those failures might be linked to unexpected side
>    effects of commits, changes in outside world (a tarball has moved) or any
>    kind of transient failure. It is not possible, as of now, to declare that
>    nothing must break.

Again, this was not the point. The point was that nothing _new_
breaks. Beeing imperfect is not desired (of course it would be ideal),
but getting better is desired. That's a small but important
difference, I think.

Mit freundlichen Grüßen,
Kind regards,
Matthias Beyer

Proudly sent with mutt.
Happily signed with gnupg.
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 819 bytes
Desc: not available
Url : http://lists.science.uu.nl/pipermail/nix-dev/attachments/20150119/3091c011/attachment.bin 

More information about the nix-dev mailing list