Re: [Nix-dev] RFC: three dying pull requests (let's keep them alive)

One note: * edolstra * commented on Feb 28 Probably best to do it after 1.7. So Eelco is okay with a merge of recursive nix. https://github.com/NixOS/nix/pull/213 I'm impressed by the volume of work She

Re: [Nix-dev] RFC: three dying pull requests (let's keep them alive)

> Shea Levy writes: > Recursive nix is unused because it was unfinished and it was too much > potential work to keep going without some sign it would be merged. Then I vote for a review of recursive nix, and to merge in the other two as they stand. Can you help me understand recursive nix a

Re: [Nix-dev] RFC: three dying pull requests (let's keep them alive)

We've been using the fully-modular branch + modular nixops at zalora for months: github.com/zalora/nixpkgs github.com/zalora/nixops. Recursive nix is unused because it was unfinished and it was too much potential work to keep going without some sign it would be merged. On Wed, Aug 27, 2014 at 12:

Re: [Nix-dev] RFC: three dying pull requests (let's keep them alive)

> Daniel Peebles writes: > I've noticed a bit of a pattern recently on the nix github and wanted to try > to stop it before Shea Levy decided this sort of work wasn't worth his time > anymore. I'm not proposing that we insta-merge all his changes, but can > anyone interested at least chime in

[Nix-dev] RFC: three dying pull requests (let's keep them alive)

I've noticed a bit of a pattern recently on the nix github and wanted to try to stop it before Shea Levy decided this sort of work wasn't worth his time anymore. I'm not proposing that we insta-merge all his changes, but can anyone interested at least chime in with feedback so that these pull reque