cdemu: update packages #342549
cdemu: update packages #342549
Conversation
cdemu-daemon: 3.2.6 -> 3.2.7 libmirage: 3.2.7 -> 3.2.9 linuxPackages.vhba: 20240202 -> 20240917
|
Result of 23 packages built:
|
Not applicable, as there are multiple packages with multiple versions. Version numbers are in commit description. |
|
Excuse me?? |
This reverts commit 366e562.
For multiple packages there should be multiple commits. That's how we are doing it for years. |
Are you serious? Reverting a working commit that fixes a bug out of spite?! cc @NixOS/moderation please tell em, before I get spicy again |
I would have squashed the PR anyway, so what's the difference? |
Please don't do that. It would render the commit guidelines pointless. |
|
To add insult to injury, this was a self-merge. I don't know if someone showing such disrespect for our contribution process should be wielding the rights to commit to Nixpkgs. |
|
I know that @NixOS/moderation is currently catching up on everything, and I promised to wait for them until I respond further. But since this is now crossing over into bullying / harrassment / dogpiling again (and I do in fact have emotions as well), I will now lock this thread. Even if you have the ability to circumvent the lock, please take a moment to consider your facts and your goals, before doing so. |
|
While the commit message thing here is a pretty mild violation of our contribution guidelines, and I think @dotlambda’s reaction was excessive, @bendlas’s self‐merge after disregarding the review comments and reaction to pushback, combined with his other recent behaviour, does force me to the conclusion that he is either incapable or unwilling to productively participate collaboratively in our shared project, and that his attitude towards others falls short of what we ought to expect for a committer. For the benefit of the moderation team, since they have been pinged anyway, I will link recent incidents where I found his behaviour outside of the bounds of acceptable conduct for Nixpkgs (even though I would say the same of some of his interlocutors in them too), though moderators already posted in or were pinged with regards to several of these already:
I am not sure if the jurisdiction here falls properly under the moderation team or the Nixpkgs committer delegation team, but sadly I have found @bendlas to regularly be the centre of deeply unpleasant threads that waste a lot of contributor time and frequently involve him directing flippant snark at others after they escalate to the point of being referred to the moderation team. I won’t post further in this thread before the moderation team gets to it, as I have no desire to encourage any pile‐ons or get involved in one of these situations again, but given that this is the fourth incident in less than three months I felt it important to point to some of the context here. |
|
Results are in and I have been formally warned by the mod team, as a first step towards getting banned. @emilazy I am deeply, deeply disappointed that you decided to circumvent the lock, especially since you seem to be looked at as an arbiter of justice by some. I also think that in your list, you may have forgot the one instance, where I complained about a 2-weeks ultimatum being given to maintainers I do think I have more than adequate justifications for each of the instances listed, but as I've predicted, nobody is going to try to hear it, we're all doing this for fun and in our free time, aren't we?
Just out of interest: Is anybody, who's been using this argument aware, that I've not only been the sole maintainer for the cdemu packages, but also its original creator? In fact, cdemu was the very first thing, that I packaged for NixOS, back when we were still desperate for help. The experience is what gave me confidence enough to go all-in on NixOS, because even as a novice I could create a package with a kernel module, and it's still holding up today! Since that package is actually the reason I got my maintainer status, I think it will be more than a little poetic if it's also the reason I'm leaving. That's the kind of drama, I'm actually here for 😍
So many other things to respond to, so little time. I'm picking this, because it perfectly embodies the "whack-a-mole" mentality, that seems to be taking hold in the community: Me being the mole, that dared raise its head and speak.
@dotlambda you broke it, you fix it. I've re-opened the original issue and put you as owner. I think this is fair, because even my harshest critics seem to agree that using the commit log to carry out a grudge is way over the line. Where does this leave us? I'm not gone yet, but I am also deeply disappointed in the mod team's idea of mediation - just a moderator interrogating me. There was no negotiation with counterparties, no weighing of facts, and the reason I'm the only one being formally warned is because apparently "everybody" (?) else apologized (in private? to the mod team?). And now the "mediation" is over and everybody has better things to do 😒 I already [1] EDIT After short research, I have found: https://discourse.nixos.org/t/is-there-a-process-for-appealing-a-moderator-decision/44599/36 For that mistake, I'd like to ask y'alls forgiveness. To summarize: The overwhelming trust advance that I held for the mod team is squandered. I kind of feel like a fool now for trolling the RFC-175 folks as hard as I did, just a few weeks ago, and partaking in the laughter when people told me "those never contributed anything to nixos". EDIT I want to add here, that despite that sentiment, I still trust the NixOS Moderation Team and I value them as an interest group, doing hard and important work for nixos - similar to our bulk reviewers. I am glad we have y'all. I do accept the formal warning on a provisional basis and am currently seeking dialogue with moderation@nixos.org And to everybody who's been ganging up on me, instead of seeking dialogue: Rest assured that I will be more careful with my wording from now on
To everybody at all: My DMs remain open P.S.: Please somebody more adept in tone policing tell me if this message is within bounds. I honestly have a hard time telling. P.P.S.:
@emilazy you know what I want to tell you to do with that statement, don't you? EDIT reflect on it, that is. like ... actually take a moment to reflect on it, try to take my view for a second and tell me what you think my reasons could be, that in all my time here, I have never said anything closely as hurtful about anybody trying to contribute. Like, even if they were ... like ... really annoying, right? Like ... not even if it wasn't as easily disproven as in my case, right? Like ... even if they were new and might as well have been trolling, or if they were old and quirky and way too full of themselves, or even just if they ought to have known better, right? That said: What I think, I'm bringing to the project, politically, so far:
And for the record:
And yes: If I feel any of these values threatened, I can get a bit spicy. Just tell me where the line is, I can stay within it. What are you standing in for, politically? What would you be willing to go to the line for? P.P.P.S.: I'll stop after this, but that's just too good to be left unsaid:
To quote the mod team member dealing with me; they allowed me to quote them, as long as I made clear that it was from the "mediation" phase, and not an official mod team statement:
|
|
Moderation team hat on: Let's not escalate the tension further. Locking for now. Please refrain to respond, feel free to mute the PR. |
|
That's fine, just for completeness sake: to be concluded here #342883 |
Description of changes
cdemu-daemon: 3.2.6 -> 3.2.7
libmirage: 3.2.7 -> 3.2.9
linuxPackages.vhba: 20240202 -> 20240917
fix #342530
Things done
nix.conf? (See Nix manual)sandbox = relaxedsandbox = truenix-shell -p nixpkgs-review --run "nixpkgs-review rev HEAD". Note: all changes have to be committed, also see nixpkgs-review usage./result/bin/)Add a 👍 reaction to pull requests you find important.