multi-env-deploy VS rfcs

I have used CodePipeline/CodeBuild, CodeDeploy, and CodeCommit quite a bit. You can see an example of it all working together with Terraform here: https://github.com/cogini/multi-env-deploy

Parameter Store is a good place to store things. ECS can read from it and set variables. This is a complete example of using Terraform to manage infrastructure with EC2 or ECS: https://github.com/cogini/multi-env-deploy Here is an app that runs in ECS: https://github.com/cogini/phoenix_container_example This task file sets env vars based on parameter store: https://github.com/cogini/phoenix_container_example/blob/master/ecs/taskdef.json

AWS has a fine stack for deploying "cloud native" apps on top of EC2 instances.

Build a base AMI using Packer and launch it to an Auto Scaling Group behind a load balancer. Deploy code to the ASG using CodeDeploy. Use RDS for the database.

This is a good match for languages that have good concurrency like Elixir. They benefit from deploying to big machines that have a lot of CPU cores, and keeping a common in-memory cache on the EC2 instance is more efficient than using an external cache like Elasticache. It also works well for resource-hungry systems with poor concurrency like Ruby on Rails. Putting these kinds of apps into big containers is just a waste of money.

Here is a complete example of that architecture using Terraform: https://github.com/cogini/multi-env-deploy

Similarly, bare metal can be really cost-effective. For $115/month, I can get a dedicated server with 24 VCPU cores (2x Intel Hexa-Core Xeon E5-2620 CPU), 64 GB RAM, 4x8 TB SATA, 30 TB traffic (see https://www.leaseweb.com/dedicated-servers#NL). That would be an order of magnitude more expensive on AWS with containers.

Here is how I did it with Terraform: https://github.com/cogini/multi-env-deploy/blob/master/terraform/modules/iam-codepipeline-app/main.tf

The AWS components are managed via Terraform: https://github.com/cogini/multi-env-deploy

A fully featured infrastructure using terraform with terragrunt can be found in this repo: https://github.com/cogini/multi-env-deploy/tree/master/terraform

You might like this full-featured example of using Terraform to set up the infrastructure for an application using EC2 instances in an autoscaling group or ECS containers. https://github.com/cogini/multi-env-deploy

Here is a set of hand-coded modules I wrote that handle deploying real world complex apps to AWS: https://github.com/cogini/multi-env-deploy

You may consider this view biased, but we have this: https://srid.ca/nixos-mod

* September 2023: The "Nix Community Survey 2023" is looking for gender data, and the mods don't like that most contributors are men.

* November 2023: The moderation team tries to institute a Code of Conduct https://github.com/NixOS/rfcs/pull/114 ... and they get their way

* November 2023: Some are not happy about it: https://discourse.nixos.org/t/moderation-team-accountability... -- the moderators talk about their "authority" and of course lock and hide the thread. It's "disruptive" and "off-topic", you see.

* This sort of activity continues -- moderators consolidating and increasing their power, citing how they need the power to control "concern trolls" and such -- and now in April 2024, we get https://save-nix-together.org/

The "anonymous contributors" want to drive out the NixOS founder entirely, so that _they_ are in charge. They want "to hold people accountable for bad behaviour at all levels" and lament having "responsibility without authority" - in other words, they want power, power, power. They want power over everyone. Their justification is that they believe they have the moral high ground, and they deserve to lord it over everyone else.

Hold onto that hard power, Eelco, and tell this lot to fork the project. Let's see how they enjoy moderating noxious.org instead of nixos.org

https://old.reddit.com/r/NixOS/comments/1ceiz36/thoughts_on_...

And the RFC to improve the situation:

https://github.com/NixOS/rfcs/pull/175

> (after eelco ignored the PR for quite a while, also!)

Clicking that link takes us to a PR that was opened on 2024-02-02. The initial response from the Nix author comes 7 minutes later. Puck has multiple back and forths with other members Github, but her next interaction with the Nix author comes the next day on 2024-02-03. This is also the first time in the conversation where she "reminds him ... to even read her PR message". There's a second interaction later that same day during which she does similar, but it's worth noting this is pointing to a different message and appears to be less a "reminder to read" and more re-iterating what they feel is their argument against the Nix author's own arguments. Puck then continues to have back and forth with other commenters but as of today, there has been no further comments from the Nix author after 2024-02-03, and no further comments from Puck after 2024-02-08.

This hardly to my mind qualifies either as "having to remind him multiple times to even read her PR message at all" or "after eelco ignored the PR for quite a while, also!" So as I said it's a fairly weak claim, and feels more like a "bastard eating crackers" reaction to the PR than an actual showing of poor behavior.

As for the "Meson example", I didn't ignore it. As I stated in my comment, I had at that point read two of the referenced discussions in detail, and thus commented on them. I didn't comment in the "Meson example" for the simple reason that I hadn't read it.

I have read it now, and equally find it confusing.

1) The claim in the letter is that the proposal has "passed RFC, for five years", yet the RFC itself only appears to have been opened 2022-08-24. It's been a while since grade school for me, and I'll admit COVID has warped all our sense of time, but I'm pretty sure 2022 is not 5 years ago.

2) The first completed working implementation of the change doesn't appear to have been done until 2023-01-18 (https://github.com/NixOS/rfcs/pull/132#issuecomment-13874661...). Again this is much less than 5 years old.

3) On 2023-03-20, the author of the PR for this change states:

> the RFC has made it past most of the early stages and the current goal is to achieve parity with the current buildsystem before replacing it.

(https://github.com/NixOS/rfcs/pull/132#issuecomment-14768433...)

Again, this doesn't seem to fit at all with the claim that the proposal has "passed RFC, for five years"

4) On 2023-11-01, the Nix author themselves asks for updates on the RFC implementation, an action which doesn't seem congruent with someone who is willy nilly single handedly blocking things and being a disruption to the process. And the author of the PR states:

>the main block is actually a lack of free time for the main devs!

(https://github.com/NixOS/rfcs/pull/132#issuecomment-17890770...)

This doesn't seem to point to evidence that the Nix author is single handedly holding up this process.

5) On 2024-03-21 the PR author notes:

> currently working on adding support to build nix-perl, waiting for assistance

(https://github.com/NixOS/rfcs/pull/132#issuecomment-20135356...)

Not to sound like a broken record, but if the issue isn't finished as of a few weeks ago, it can hardly be considered to be held up by the Nix author for 5 years.

I agree that one of the links in the open letter is to a comment on a PR from 2019, which is indeed 5 year ago, and does indeed contain the Nix author commenting that they are skeptical of the change because "he doesn't know meson but knows his own build system". But given that there's an entire wealth of history on the topic since then, including progress on the feature that appears completely unobstructed by the Nix author and an open PR that is a mere 3 weeks old for a current implementation, I find myself again unconvinced of this rampant bad behavior on the part of the Nix author. And I reiterate again that these complaints are very weak and don't do much to support the open letter at best, and act as contrary evidence at worst.

Again there might be other context to be had that is missing, but if one is going to write a massive "open letter" complaining about bad behavior, I expect the links in that letter to point to actual bad behavior, and or provide the relevant context necessary to show how what appears to be normal dissent is a passive aggressive continuation of obstruction. I have to assume the links one provides in an open letter is their strongest evidence, and if this is all the authors have... I am unconvinced.

Nix with dynamic derivations (RFC92) could potentially beat this curse.

https://github.com/NixOS/rfcs/blob/master/rfcs/0092-plan-dyn...

See: A plan to stabilize the new CLI and Flakes incrementally https://github.com/NixOS/rfcs/pull/136

NixOS recently introduced "problem" infrastructure to deal with such problems more gracefully and explicitly:

https://github.com/NixOS/rfcs/blob/master/rfcs/0127-issues-w...

For some more context: Flawed as they are, Flakes solve a large number of problems Nix experiences without them. This is why I, and presumably many others, use them even in their current experimental state.

An RFC was recently accepted to commit to forming a plan towards stabilization of Flakes: https://github.com/NixOS/rfcs/pull/136

Personally, I don't believe there won't be any breaking changes, but I also believe that the stabilization of Flakes is still a ways away and hope that there will be a reasonable migration path.