action-hosting-deploy VS nixpkgs

Could they not have their own FB to develop against? Does every dev need to use just yours? If that is the case, then you'd need to use https://support.google.com/firebase/answer/7000272?hl=en also, it looks to be possible to include Firebase in your GitHub for them to pull from https://firebase.google.com/docs/hosting/github-integration

Github Actions is the way to go for this: https://firebase.google.com/docs/hosting/github-integration

Whenever a Pull Request is created we need to be able to quickly checkout the changes. Reading code diff is great, but sometimes you just need to tinker with the new version, test it on mobile, different browsers and OS. Cloud services are perfect for this case, they allow you to deploy the code temporarily and access it with a link from any device. We chose Firebase to host it for us and a Github action posts a link to the deployment as a comment in the Pull Request. It works like a charm and speeds up code reviews a lot. Read this article to set it up on your repository!

Lambdas and firebase on the GCP stack for CRUD apps.

One nice thing about firebase -> each PR deploys to its own preview channel[1].

Downside: Very JS heavy. I write lambdas in python though.

[1] https://firebase.google.com/docs/hosting/github-integration

Google Firebase has a pretty straightforward guide to setting up auto-deploy from Github, which you can take a look at here: https://firebase.google.com/docs/hosting/github-integration

What is the easiest way for setting up CI/CD from GH for Firebase functions? Maybe something like this for hosting, but only for functions?

Note: you can find more info about the used steps actions here actions/checkout@v2 and here FirebaseExtended/action-hosting-deploy@v0

This will drop you into a shell where `tracexec` is installed.

[1]: https://github.com/NixOS/nixpkgs/pull/310158

I don't think so. The article is probably intended for the Nix community, so the author doesn't need to convince HN that something is going on. If as an outsider you are interested then you need to look into it yourself, the community has no obligation to make their internal conflicts legible to the outside world.

As an outsider myself, it certainly looks like something is going on as more than 20 Nixpkg maintainers left in a week: https://github.com/NixOS/nixpkgs/issues?q=label%3A%228.has%3...

https://github.com/NixOS/nixpkgs/commits?author=neon-sunset

I see two signers in the top 6 displayed on https://github.com/NixOS/nixpkgs/graphs/contributors

For a single file script, nix can make the package management quite easy: https://github.com/NixOS/nixpkgs/blob/master/doc/languages-f...

For example,

```

Yes, Nix doesn't actually ensure that the builds are deterministic. In fact it works just fine if they aren't. There are packages in nixpkgs that aren't reproducible: https://github.com/NixOS/nixpkgs/issues?q=is%3Aopen+is%3Aiss...

I'm not familiar with Bazel, but Nix in it's current form wouldn't have solved this attack. First of all, the standard mkDerivation function calls the same configure; make; make install process that made this attack possible. Nixpkgs regularly pulls in external resources (fetchUrl and friends) that are equally vulnerable to a poisoned release tarball. Checkout the comment on the current xz entry in nixpkgs https://github.com/NixOS/nixpkgs/blob/master/pkgs/tools/comp...

NixOS uses a monorepo and I think everyone's love it.

I love being able to easily grep through all the packages source code and there's regularly PRs that harmonizes conventions across many packages.

Nixpkgs doesn't include the packaged software source code, so it's a lot more practical than what Debian is doing.

https://github.com/NixOS/nixpkgs