-
-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 14.6k
New issue
Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.
By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.
Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account
zfs: rename zfsStable -> zfs_2_2; zfsUnstable -> zfs_unstable; remove enableUnstable option in favor of package #291951
Merged
Merged
Changes from 6 commits
Commits
Show all changes
7 commits
Select commit
Hold shift + click to select a range
dcff4f8
zfs_2_2: Rename from zfsStable
amarshall 1c84667
nixos/tests/zfs: Get test name from pkg under test
amarshall ce5b1e0
nixos/zfs: Fix typo in option doc
amarshall 929fcf9
zfs_unstable: Rename from zfsUnstable
amarshall 2e36c49
nixos/pam: Do not incorrectly use zfs.enableUnstable in assertion
amarshall 1f32eb7
nixos/zfs: Remove enableUnstable in favor of setting package
amarshall 29a1b11
zfs_*: Avoid failing pkgs/by-name migration check
amarshall File filter
Filter by extension
Conversations
Failed to load comments.
Loading
Jump to
Jump to file
Failed to load files.
Loading
Diff view
Diff view
There are no files selected for viewing
This file contains bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
This file contains bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
This file contains bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
This file contains bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
This file contains bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
This file contains bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
This file contains bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
This file contains bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
This file contains bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
Oops, something went wrong.
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
This suggestion is invalid because no changes were made to the code.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is closed.
Suggestions cannot be applied while viewing a subset of changes.
Only one suggestion per line can be applied in a batch.
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
Applying suggestions on deleted lines is not supported.
You must change the existing code in this line in order to create a valid suggestion.
Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.
This suggestion has been applied or marked resolved.
Suggestions cannot be applied from pending reviews.
Suggestions cannot be applied on multi-line comments.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is queued to merge.
Suggestion cannot be applied right now. Please check back later.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
This is the one annoying unanticipated edge case with RFC 140. I do like how it encourages refactorings though: In this case a
pkgs.zfsVersions
like described in #287918 (comment) would work great, I'd love to see that, it's my recommendation here.However, merging this PR as is indeed won't break master (I have a PR to make this clearer), but we really shouldn't normalise merging with red checks (that's how we ended up with #289649).
Instead I'd like to improve the error messages and documentation to show how such refactorings can be done (and manually responding to pings as here until then).
Edit: Now opened #292214 to document this better
As a last resort, it's also possible to weaken the check for new packages to not trigger in such cases. This will be easy to do once the code for the automated migration is in place (working on it). I hope this won't be necessary with the improved error message/docs though.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
This is the opposite of what is described in [pkgs/README.md](https://github.com/NixOS/nixpkgs/blob/c6caed479a521fd96b847d287c3fbdc611ffdca3/pkgs/README.md#package-naming, that suggests multiple versions should be top-level (the example in the doc being
json-c_0_9
, never suggesting package sets. Package sets also have downsides: they are more awkward to overlay and adding aliases requires foregoing all the tooling builtin toaliases.nix
and manually dealing withallowAliases
.Agreed, and I appreciate the pause given here (and in another recent PR of mine that renamed—fortunately it was amenable to migration and so it was done (and in general I like pkgs/by-name).
One alternative to consider (nowhere near an opinion) is changing pkgs/by-name migration check to add a comment to the PR when merging is still “okay but discouraged”, rather than a failing check.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Oh yeah that's a good point. I just opened #292214 to have a better recommendation that can be applied more generally. Shouldn't be a problem with that.
That's a good idea, I'll keep it in mind and might use it if this becomes a bigger problem. For now I'm hoping the PR I just opened will give a good path forward, and once merged I intend to change the CI check to link to that documentation.