I think it would be handy though. After all, this is NixOS we're talking
about. We already have system.stateVersion for protecting stateful data,
and fixing the rest of the system is only a rollback away. Why not make
the alias/symlink without making it the default?
On 05/03/17 19:37, Nathan B
David Izquierdo writes:
> I think it would be handy though. After all, this is NixOS we're talking
> about. We already have system.stateVersion for protecting stateful data,
> and fixing the rest of the system is only a rollback away. Why not make
> the alias/symlink without making it the defa
On 06/03/17 06:54, Sander wrote:
Moving a symlink twice a year?
Good point. I guess it would be worth trying out and we can see how many
people use this.
I was thinking something more rolling would be nice too. Like a lightly
tested. Although that would definitely have more maintenance costs.
It's something like 15min of work to parse http://nixos.org/channels/ and
point to the latest channel if someone needs this.
Officially this is a very bad idea, since people will want us to support it.
On Mon, Mar 6, 2017 at 12:24 PM, Kevin Cox wrote:
> On 06/03/17 06:54, Sander wrote:
>
>> Mov
On 06/03/17 15:03, Domen Kožar wrote:
> It's something like 15min of work to parse http://nixos.org/channels/
> and point to the latest channel if someone needs this.
>
> Officially this is a very bad idea, since people will want us to
> support it.
Isn't the point to just have it refer to the v
At the moment we don't provide a strong guarantee that release upgrades
will be 100% backward-compatible. Having a "stable" channel that jumps
between releases would be misleading I think.
On Mon, 6 Mar 2017, 15:07 Linus Heckemann, wrote:
> On 06/03/17 15:03, Domen Kožar wrote:
> > It's somethin
zimbatm wrote (ao):
> At the moment we don't provide a strong guarantee that release
> upgrades will be 100% backward-compatible. Having a "stable" channel
> that jumps between releases would be misleading I think.
With Debian one can choose a specific [1]release (Wheezy, Jessie, Stretch,
Sid (rol
On 17-03-06 04:03pm, Domen Kožar wrote:
> It's something like 15min of work to parse http://nixos.org/channels/ and
> point to the latest channel if someone needs this.
>
> Officially this is a very bad idea, since people will want us to support it.
Also ignoring the idea behind stable upgrades,
I think It could be worthwhile to look at openSUSE's Tumbleweed setup
for rolling releases. They use openQA for automatic testing of every
package in the distribution, and then release the binaries as snapshots
for users to update. Pretty similar to how nixpkgs git -> Hydra -> cache
works, with
On 03/08/2017 07:20 PM, David Izquierdo wrote:
> Pretty similar to how nixpkgs git -> Hydra -> cache works, with an
> additional testing phase.
To be clear, we do have quite a few nixos tests running on Hydra, and
the nixos channels won't update if some of the "critical ones" fail.
(Still, SUSE's
Graham Christensen wrote (ao):
> NixOS 17.03 has entered Beta. This means we now have 3 versions of NixOS
> being developed:
>
> - 16.09 (stable)
> - 17.03 (beta)
> - unstable
Would it make sense to have a 'nixos-stable' channel that points to
whatever channel is stable?
Sander
__
I think that's dangerous. You will be upgrading without being aware of any
breaking changes.
N.
On Sun, Mar 5, 2017, 17:15 Sander wrote:
> Graham Christensen wrote (ao):
> > NixOS 17.03 has entered Beta. This means we now have 3 versions of NixOS
> > being developed:
> >
> > - 16.09 (stable)
>
Oops, forgot to include the list.
On Mar 5, 2017 16:15, "Sander" wrote:
Graham Christensen wrote (ao):
> NixOS 17.03 has entered Beta. This means we now have 3 versions of NixOS
> being developed:
>
> - 16.09 (stable)
> - 17.03 (beta)
> - unstable
Would it make sense to have a 'nixos-stable'
On 5 March 2017 at 20:22, Kevin Cox wrote:
> Oops, forgot to include the list.
>
> On Mar 5, 2017 16:15, "Sander" wrote:
>
> Graham Christensen wrote (ao):
>> NixOS 17.03 has entered Beta. This means we now have 3 versions of NixOS
>> being developed:
>>
>> - 16.09 (stable)
>> - 17.03 (beta)
>>
On Mar 5, 2017 19:26, "Bjørn Forsman" wrote:
As long as the nixos-stable channel is an opt-in, why not?
Well there would be a maintenance overhead.
___
nix-dev mailing list
nix-dev@lists.science.uu.nl
http://lists.science.uu.nl/mailman/listinfo/nix-de
Kevin Cox wrote (ao):
> On Mar 5, 2017 19:26, "Bjørn Forsman" wrote:
> > As long as the nixos-stable channel is an opt-in, why not?
>
> Well there would be a maintenance overhead.
Moving a symlink twice a year?
Sander
___
nix-dev mailing list
16 matches
Mail list logo
