acy because a person can be angry while still being
> rational. Nonetheless, a tone argument may be useful when responding to a
> statement that itself does not have rational content, such as an appeal to
> emotion.
I will elaborate below.
> Hi MSavoritias,
>
> This message is
argument, please consider the time and place and the
context of things before arguing next time.
> On 2024-06-21, MSavoritias wrote:
> > On Fri, 21 Jun 2024 09:51:30 -0700
> > Vagrant Cascadian wrote:
> >
> >> On 2024-06-21, MSavoritias wrote:
> >&g
On Sat, 22 Jun 2024 09:06:20 -0400
Richard Sent wrote:
> Hi MSavoritias,
>
> MSavoritias writes:
>
> >> Well, the opt-in model is in place: As soon as I put my code under a free
> >> license on the Internet, I opt in for it to be harvested by SWH (and
> &g
On Fri, 21 Jun 2024 09:51:30 -0700
Vagrant Cascadian wrote:
> On 2024-06-21, MSavoritias wrote:
> > On Fri, 21 Jun 2024 11:46:56 +0200
> > Andreas Enge wrote:
> >> Am Fri, Jun 21, 2024 at 12:12:13PM +0300 schrieb MSavoritias:
> >> > and as I mention in m
On Fri, 21 Jun 2024 16:33:40 +
Luis Felipe wrote:
> El 21/06/24 a las 14:15, MSavoritias escribió:
> > On Fri, 21 Jun 2024 13:45:04 +
> > Luis Felipe wrote:
> >
> >> El 21/06/24 a las 10:44, MSavoritias escribió:
> >>> On Fri, 21 Jun 202
On Fri, 21 Jun 2024 13:45:04 +
Luis Felipe wrote:
> El 21/06/24 a las 10:44, MSavoritias escribió:
> > On Fri, 21 Jun 2024 11:46:56 +0200
> > Andreas Enge wrote:
> >
> >> Am Fri, Jun 21, 2024 at 11:14:18AM +0300 schrieb MSavoritias:
> >>> As
On Fri, 21 Jun 2024 11:46:56 +0200
Andreas Enge wrote:
> Am Fri, Jun 21, 2024 at 12:12:13PM +0300 schrieb MSavoritias:
> > and as I mention in my first email I want to apply social pressure and make
> > it clear to package authors what is happening so we can move to an op
with the last option, as everyone would be relying on the
> collective of Guix maintainers to not screw up and accidentally leak private
> data.
>
> Dale
Yeah very much agree this should be the default behavior. Archiving should be
opt-in to avoid any surprises for the person running it.
I am surprised it became default actually.
MSavoritias
a consentual model.
MSavoritias
> Hi all,
>
> For the record, the Software Heritage initiative is supportive of the
> Guix project since years.
>
> It means that members of Guix community have or had interactions with
> Software Heritage (SWH) teams since years. For e
x27;t have any social rules on top of the FSF definition (it does)
and that it doesn't respect consent
2. That its not about the context of something. For example GPL or our CoC
restrict freedom so that people can be more free to express themselves :)
> IMHO, that’s not because we would like
t, I can only understand it as people being mad
> >> about Free Software because it's about software.
> >>
> >> For other values, we can start other initiatives I may or may not
> >> agree more with, but if the value is freedom (in software), I don't
&g
ing all code from the packages to
SWH that basically feeds it to a LLM model is indeed not honoring consent of
the author of the package. What you can do legally doesn't matter if you are an
asshole after all.
So in this context it absolutely makes sense. Because we have social rules
around consent and Guix doesn't seem to be following them currently.
MSavoritias
On Wed, 19 Jun 2024 16:41:33 +0200
Simon Tournier wrote:
> Hi MSavoritias, all,
>
> Let me provide more context.
>
> The concern started couple of months ago, to my knowledge. And
> discussion is still on going. So I think that’s incorrect to say “any
> result for over
On Wed, 19 Jun 2024 17:46:08 +0200
Ekaitz Zarraga wrote:
> On 2024-06-19 12:25, raingl...@riseup.net wrote:
> > On 2024-06-19 11:54, Efraim Flashner wrote:
> >> On Wed, Jun 19, 2024 at 12:13:38PM +0300, MSavoritias wrote:
> >> ...
> >> One of our packages
On Wed, 19 Jun 2024 19:56:26 -0700
Felix Lechner wrote:
> Hi MSavoritias,
>
> On Wed, Jun 19 2024, MSavoritias wrote:
>
> > I am not interested what the states or licenses/copyrights allow or
> > don't allow in this case. What I care about is what we expect as a
&
On Wed, 19 Jun 2024 12:54:30 +0300
Efraim Flashner wrote:
> On Wed, Jun 19, 2024 at 12:13:38PM +0300, MSavoritias wrote:
> > On Wed, 19 Jun 2024 09:52:36 +0200
> > Simon Tournier wrote:
> >
> > > Hi Ian, all,
> > >
> > > On Tue, 18 Jun 2024
and the process should be transparent to everybody putting
code into SH. Archiving source code is a good cause. This is why
I said to approach them in official Guix capacity :)
MSavoritias
On Tue, 18 Jun 2024 13:31:02 -0400
Greg Hogan wrote:
> On Tue, Jun 18, 2024 at 12:33 PM MSavoritias
> wrote:
> >
> > Ah it seems I wasn't clear enough.
> > I meant write something like:
> >
> > By packaging a software project for Guix you are exposi
On Tue, 18 Jun 2024 12:21:33 -0400
Greg Hogan wrote:
> On Tue, Jun 18, 2024 at 4:37 AM MSavoritias
> wrote:
> >
> > 1. Add a clear disclaimer/requirment that any new package that is
> > added in Guix, the person has to give consent or get consent from
> > the pers
us to actually be an inclusive,
welcoming space we want to be. Idk what that leaves us, as I said I am
not part of any "insider" discussions. But it seems to not move that
much and its time to start doing actionable things in another direction.
MSavoritias
rg/maximed/cargoless-rust-experiments
I was wondering of the differences since your build system seems to
still be using cargo under the hood instead of rustc.
MSavoritias
On 3/21/24 17:23, Hartmut Goebel wrote:
Am 21.03.24 um 07:12 schrieb MSavoritias:
Specifically the social rules that we support trans people and we
want to include them. Any person really that want to change their
name at some point for some reason.
Interestingly you are asking the right
-org/gitlab/-/issues/20960 for Gitlab
doing the same thing.
MSavoritias
As a side note, other than the "petname system" please also consider
re:claimID from GNUnet:
https://www.gnunet.org/en/reclaim/index.html
https://www.gnunet.org/en/reclaim/motivation.html
[...]
Regards, Giovan
e and making them feel safe and respected.
MSavoritias
Also, SHW and other organizations (re)distributing free software have
their rights and should excercise them without being harassed.
Ludovic Courtès writes:
[...]
are above any tech ideals we may have.
We dont need to rewrite history at all also. There was a solution
already by Gitlab which was also proposed in the other thread (for legal
reasons) to do with UUIDs.
MSavoritias
On 3/18/24 17:14, Andreas Enge wrote:
Am Mon, Mar 18, 2024 at 04:33:49PM +0200 schrieb MSavoritias:
Actually gitlab already is facing something like that and they are doing
what was proposed elsewhere: mapping of UUIDs to display names
https://gitlab.com/gitlab-org/gitlab/-/issues/20960
On 3/18/24 16:19, Andreas Enge wrote:
Am Mon, Mar 18, 2024 at 04:03:20PM +0200 schrieb MSavoritias:
Rewriting history is the wrong question imo. I dont think a request to
change all of the history of Guix will be accepted anyway.
A much easier thing to do is to change the approach in the
would say.
Andreas
Rewriting history is the wrong question imo. I dont think a request to
change all of the history of Guix will be accepted anyway.
A much easier thing to do is to change the approach in the future. And
let all the past history untouched.
MSavoritias
On 3/18/24 15:12, Simon Tournier wrote:
Hi MSavoritias,
On lun., 18 mars 2024 at 13:47, MSavoritias wrote:
As advice for the future when somebody says a concern or wish they have,
your first statement shouldn't be "but its legal" because that
completely dismisses a
ome point realize their mistake.
MSavoritias
tise their
deadname was never in question.
Guix is a place that supports trans people and anybody else that wants
to change their name.
We don't need "enforcers" here or put the "burden of proof" on people.
MSavoritias
On 3/17/24 18:20, Ian Eure wrote:
MSavoritias writes:
On 3/17/24 11:39, Lars-Dominik Braun wrote:
Hey,
I have heard folks in the Guix maintenance sphere claim that we
never rewrite git history in Guix, as a matter of policy. I believe
we should revisit that policy (is it actually
On 3/17/24 13:53, paul wrote:
Hi all ,
thank you MSavoritias for bringing up points that many of us share.
It's clearly a tradeoff what to do about the past. For the future, as
Christpher already stated, we need a serious solution that we can
uphold as a free software project that doe
trying to say what we should do about commit history rewriting
here. Personally the tradeoffs are probably worth it.
But I am trying to say what Guix should do as a culture over including
people or excluding in the case of Software Heritage.
MSavoritias
On 3/16/24 21:45, Tomas Volf wrote:
On 2024-03-16 20:24:50 +0200, MSavoritias wrote:
I was also distressed to see how poorly they treated a developer who
wished to update their name:
https://cohost.org/arborelia/post/4968198-the-software-heritag
https://cohost.org/arborelia/post/5052044-the
ts
to Software Heritage, but there should be some social action we can take.
For example until the matter is resolved and Software Heritage
implements a process that respects trans rights Software Heritage should
not be welcome in Guix Spaces.
MSavoritias
ed to know to never touch
whatever they are doing.
MSavoritias
On 12/10/23 17:56, Vivien Kraus wrote:
Le dimanche 10 décembre 2023 à 17:45 +0200, MSavoritias a écrit :
There is also a trust issue. For acceptance, we need bridging. For
bridging, we need policing. And for policing, we need people with
time.
That's a good question yeah. Whether we
On 12/10/23 16:43, Felix Lechner wrote:
Hi MSavoritias,
On Sun, Dec 10 2023, MSavoritias wrote:
Do you think it would be ok to use a VPS? Or do we want a physical
server at somebody's home?
It's a community question. Everyone knows about IRC, and it works
well. I'm not sure
On 12/10/23 05:53, Felix Lechner wrote:
Hi,
On Fri, Dec 08 2023, MSavoritias wrote:
2. We can self host our own prosody instance.
I host my own Prosody instance (mostly to talk to Soprani). [1][2] I
recommend the project host its own, as well.
Yeah the consensus so far seems to be to
On 12/8/23 20:43, Vivien Kraus wrote:
Hello Guix!
Le vendredi 08 décembre 2023 à 19:22 +0200, MSavoritias a écrit :
I propose to host an xmpp instance with a room/or some rooms under
the
guix domain. Something like xmpp.guix.gnu.org
Are there options for guests?
I don’t know how XMPP or
t be a problem.
All we would need to do is change where our DNS points to and that's it.
MSavoritias
On 12/7/23 09:42, Ada Stevenson wrote:
Hi,
On 12/2/23 8:20 AM, MSavoritias wrote:
Hey, I thought this mailing list is the most fitting for the request
feel free to point out if its better somewhere else.
Is the community open to have group chats listed in other networks
than IRC assuming
mpp is free software
from server to client.
Also disclaimer: I am not talking about starting to bridge them. That is
an entirely separate thing with different tradeoffs and maintenance.
Just listing the group chat is easy though :)
Msavoritias
am that
means that the community is open
to suggestions and changes at the very least. which is not what happens
with Emacs.
This is from someone who uses Emacs.
MSavoritias
x27;t know guile or guix need to first
contribute docs is pretty ridiculous.
MSavoritias
On 23-09-2023 10:58, paul wrote:
Dear Janneke,
On 9/23/23 09:37, Janneke Nieuwenhuizen wrote:
Nathan Dehnel writes:
I don't use emacs either (because it's so impenetrable)
Emacs might be som
is pretty
conservative in changing anything for decades in the default config also
doesn't help.
MSavoritias
to be.
What we instead need to do is acknowledge that some people like the web
approach.
And accommodate them so we can have guix used by more people. Simple as
that :D
Its free software and power to the person that using the software after all.
MSavoritias
On 9/20/23 17:03, Ricardo Wurmus wrote:
MSavoritias writes:
On 9/20/23 11:45, Nguyễn Gia Phong via Development of GNU Guix and the
GNU System distribution. wrote:
On 2023-09-20 at 10:21+02:00, Csepp wrote:
It's better if we have at least one *well documented* developer setup,
than
ogfood
it more.
MSavoritias
On 9/18/23 20:13, Simon Tournier wrote:
On Mon, 18 Sept 2023 at 18:35, MSavoritias wrote:
I was talking from my experience. If you don't share it that is fine.
Share what? Your experience? How can I? Instead, I share facts
backed by numbers.
It is fine to share how you per
tart messing
around with guix or guile.
MSavoritias
On 9/18/23 12:37, Simon Tournier wrote:
Hi,
On Sun, 17 Sep 2023 at 19:20, MSavoritias wrote:
Including an committer. And the fact that guix doesn't get have many
committers and contributors are scarce, speaks for itself. If you don't
see it I suggest asking people in social netwo
On 9/18/23 16:10, Peter Polidoro wrote:
MSavoritias writes:
I go to the manual to learn package management,
https://guix.gnu.org/en/manual/devel/en/guix.html#Package-Management
Apparently i have to either use the terminal or something called
emacs. If I follow the guide located here
this.
MSavoritias
On 9/16/23 15:59, Wilko Meyer wrote:
Hi Guix,
I haven't had enough time to read up on every topic that has been
mentioned in the "How can we decrease the cognitive overhead for
contributors?" discussion as at some point it got quite a lot to
follow. At one poi
On 9/10/23 01:20, Liliana Marie Prikler wrote:
Am Samstag, dem 09.09.2023 um 21:40 +0200 schrieb Ricardo Wurmus:
Liliana Marie Prikler writes:
Must we force a single workflow on everyone, even if our track
record in reviewing and merging doesn’t clearly show that our way
is superior?
Again
rders of magnitude better accessibility than
anything email. as a medium.
I mean we don't even have much accessibility to speak of in guix but
that's another topic.
MSavoritias
On 9/12/23 17:51, Maxim Cournoyer wrote:
Hi,
Csepp writes:
Giovanni Biscuolo writes:
[[PGP Signed Part:Undecided]]
Hello Csepp,
Csepp writes:
[...]
I don't think repeating that no forge sucks less advances the
conversation towards any solution other than keeping the status quo,
whic
people
wanting to use code there is others. As there is for actually committing
being discussed elsewhere for improvements.
Yes I want to help on all of them at some point :)
MSavoritias
On 9/7/23 23:38, Katherine Cox-Buday wrote:
On 9/5/23 2:43 PM, Liliana Marie Prikler wrote:
Am Dienstag, dem 05.09.2023 um 19:40 +0100 schrieb (:
Liliana Marie Prikler writes:
Uhm, we have snippets?
Well, those are exclusive to Emacs :) And without regard to /that/
issue, I do think that
re that person,
but that is how a person that wants to contribute will get the argument.
The part about email working for you, I am glad it does :)
We need to care for the people that may like a different style of
contributing too though.
Because the more people guix can attract the be
Run `git push` (subsequent changes are still just `git push`).
>> 13. Go to forge website, click button to open a pull-request.
>> 14. Wait for CI to tell you if anything is wrong.
>
> To be fair, here you forget one important blocker: having an account to
> the forge w
s as
possible since its a horrible interface.
And yes the gnu commit messages could be improved. Its not like they are
set in stone anyway.
MSavoritias
Giovanni Biscuolo writes:
> [[PGP Signed Part:Undecided]]
> Hello Katherine,
>
> thank you for having summarized (part of) this thread in
Simon Tournier writes:
> Hi,
>
> On Tue, 29 Aug 2023 at 12:53, MSavoritias wrote:
>
>> Do you know if there are any plans to write a scheme bug/patching
>> system? Because looking a bit into it, it doesn't seem like its that
>> actively developed so maybe
Ekaitz Zarraga writes:
>> > This is what I mean when I say many times emacs is kind of mandatory,
>> > and
>> > this thread is kind of a demonstration of what I meant because the main
>> > discussion evolved to: you can use this or that in emacs to ease the
>> > dev
>> > experience.
>>
>>
>>
t do it as easy as that but I also need to clone a
repo and run multiple scripts inside a container(?). We should work on
moving as close to a 'guix edit' and 'mumi push' contribution as
possible.
MSavoritias
Katherine Cox-Buday writes:
> Summary of my conclusions:
ther account for one-off contributions
> is an argument that kills all the forges, sadly :)
>
With Sourcehut you can contribute without an account.
There is also https://forgefed.org/ which is for federated forges using
activitypub. So you can have one account for all forges that
federate. :D
MSavoriti
m like its that
actively developed so maybe we would be better served by one in scheme.
Or Sourcehut of course as somebody wrote in another email.
Since not much would change with sr.ht anyways.
MSavoritias
> Cheers,
> simon
simple
> to maintain, the utilitarian approach of least misery leads you to
> plain email.
>
Also this is sounds like you think the other person just follows fashion
and you are the one that follows the "enlightened" way because you use
email. This is not the discussion we are having and we don't treat
people as less if they dont use terminal, emails or emacs or whatever
else you find amazing or whatever.
MSavoritias
> Cheers
Julien Lepiller writes:
> Le 24 août 2023 10:41:23 GMT+02:00, Msavoritias a
> écrit :
>>
>>What I am saying here is that:
>>Its easy to see from our very US centric tech culture why everybody
>>should just use ASCII because "This is how it is". B
have tools like Unicode that make our
lives easier compared to US or nothing of 30-40 years ago.
Just imagine how many good programmers we are missing because they don't
want/can't learn English or don't have an ASCII keyboard.
MSavoritias
MSavoritias writes:
> Nguyễn Gia
Nguyễn Gia Phong writes:
> [[PGP Signed Part:Undecided]]
> On 2023-08-24 at 10:41+03:00, MSavoritias wrote:
>> Nguyễn Gia Phong writes:
>> > I think the distinction must be made here between Guix and GuixSD.
>> >
>> > The packaging software should
Nguyễn Gia Phong writes:
> On 2023-08-24 at 10:16+03:00, MSavoritias wrote:
>> "(" writes:
>> > Eidvilas Markevičius writes:
>> > > with a name that contains non-Latin characters in it
>> > > (e.g., "Naršytuvas" by Raštija
ry
of course). We should open a bug report and work on fixing the bug.
MSavoritias
"(" writes:
> Eidvilas Markevičius writes:
>> with a name that contains non-Latin characters in it (e.g.,
>> "Naršytuvas" by Raštija [2]).
>
> I think we should stick to ASC
do pull
requests and such.
Thats why I was also aggreeing with Sourcehut in the other email. (Which
already has guix ci support.) Guix would benefit from less NIH imo. At
least in places where there already better solutions.
Msavoritias
> --
> • attila lendvai
> • PGP: 963F 5D5F 45C7 DFCD 0A39
Very much agreed with Sourcehut as a much better frontend for guix.
Plus its AGPL3 licensed all of it afaik.
Regarding the forum I dont think any forum would have much traction.
I agree that either matrix or xmpp could be considered instead for that
purpose.
As a more approachable chat mechanism co
inition is reasonable.
>
> In other words, I don't think a LLM could make it easier/faster to write
> package definitions.
>
> Kind regards,
> pinoaffe
Yeah Agreed.
It seems to just shift the problem from "We need developers" to "We need
people that verify the output of the LLM." So we are basically stuck
with the same problem.
Regards,
MSavoritias
77 matches
Mail list logo
