-
-
-
InfluxDB
Power Real-Time Data Analytics at Scale. Get real-time insights from all types of time series data with InfluxDB. Ingest, query, and analyze billions of data points in real-time with unbounded cardinality.
-
> (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.
> I'm sure that somewhere buried in a wall of text they state what this is all about
If they could've, they would've. Unfortunately, this has been a problem in the Nix community for a while. No one mentioned in this letter is an "abusive" "right-wing" "concern troll" by any stretch. None of evidence buried in this wall of text supports that assumption. Whether the authors realize it or not, this letter consists almost entirely of ad hominems and accusations of ulterior motives.
Just as an aide, I wrote "almost," because I do think the handling of the sponsorship was an issue here despite the letter framing this as not the central issue. Military sponsors aren't a great fit for a community of international volunteers, especially one trying to put AI on drones. I'm not comfortable with that either. But were the accused members of the Nix community abusing and concern trolling to push a right wing agenda? Definitely not.
The other issues though, are just disagreements. The letter is taking screenshots of random disagreements and claiming it as proof of, again, "abusive" "right-wing" "concern trolling" behavior. Some vocal members of the Nix community love to do this. All. The. Time.
They disagreed with me. They didn't do this or that. That means they must be against social justice. They're persecuting minorities. They're concern trolling. Oh, here's another person trying to stay away from all the arguing. They're complicit too.
This is the stated mentality of these vocal members. This is also the reason I avoid posting in NixOS Discourse and Matrix off topic chat channels. It just feels like some are more interested playing Game of Thrones. It's not representative of the community, but I don't want to attract unnecessary attention from the vocal few.
Actual concrete example. The Nixpkgs repository includes a file containing a list of maintainers. A PR was made against this file, and one member of the community asked the PR author if they can make the maintainer name the same as their GitHub username.
https://github.com/NixOS/nixpkgs/pull/120729#discussion_r621...
And this exploded. Way out of proportion. Some were pouncing on the member who made that comment. To me, the response seems far more abusive than the original comment ever was.
https://github.com/NixOS/nixpkgs/pull/120729#discussion_r621...
Accusations were flown, like "denying someone of a name." Seriously?
https://github.com/NixOS/nixpkgs/pull/120729#discussion_r622...
I feel bad about bringing this up, but it only seems fair to show the whole picture given the situation.
> https://github.com/NixOS/nix/pull/9911#issuecomment-19252073...