[Nix-dev] Re: Why stdenv-updates branch?

[Peter Simons]

Hi,

I thought about this subject a little more:

> Personally, I'm not particularly fond of stdenv-updates.

I've come to realize that I don't mind the stdenv-updates branch per se.
The idea that changes to stdenv are staged elsewhere and tested before
they're being committed to trunk is fine. Yet, in the past stdenv-updates
had a tendency to degenerate, because very few people actually use it. The
result is that trunk and stdenv-updates diverge; a situation that is quite
unpleasant and causes a lot of problems in its own right, because we
effectively end up having two trunks.

My suggestion would be to ensure that stdenv-updates is merged back into
trunk quickly, say every 2 weeks or so. Holding updates back much longer
feels counterproductive.

We all have chosen a package manager, Nix, that has the ability to rebuild
the entire system whenever a core package changes. I have chosen Nix
because I *want* that. So if it happens every now and then that Nix *does*
want to rebuild the entire system, then that's fine with me.

Take care,
Peter