| Age | Commit message (Collapse) | Author |
|---|
|
This change was motivated by my testing of tabbyAPI. I kept doing like
`nix-build -A pkgs.tabbyAPI` and I thought, can't bild just do this? So I wrote
a file called TabbyAPI.nix with the following contents::
{ bild }: bild.pkgs.tabbyAPI
and it worked, I just needed this change to Bild.hs to supply the `bild`
argument. The benefit of using bild here is that I can get the logging,
concurrency settings, and linking to _/nix etc all by default. Plus, using a
standalone nix file like TabbyAPI.nix might be a good way to pin some package
in the build system and make sure it continues to build, test, and so on.
Also, thie means I don't sprinkle relative paths to the Bild.nix library
throughout the repo, which is bad practice anyway.
Re: explicitly exposing refernces to stable: This keeps things a bit more tidy
and less confusing when working on the nix library.
|
|
This patch does a few things:
1. Switches from nixpkgs-unstable to nixos-unstable{,-small}, simply because
nixpkgs-unstable is not in cache.nixos.org, but nixos-unstable is, and -small
is the same but requires all tests to pass. So we should prefer
nixos-unstable-small, whenever possible.
2. Reorganizes the nixpkgs import code such that Nixpkgs.nix returns an attrset
of all the nixpkgs that I want to use, rather than putting other nixpkgs
branches into the main one as an overlay. This is much simpler and explicit,
but it meant I had to change a lot of usages throughtout the nix codebase.
3. As a consequence of 2, moves the overlays into separate files so they can be
re-used across nixpkgs branches.
|
|
nixfmt is the soon-to-be official formatter for Nix code, as per the NixOS
GitHub group. So I figure I should just adopt it without worrying too much about
the specifics of the formatting. I just formatted everything in one go, hence
the huge diff, oh well.
|
|
Lots of changes here but the code is much improved. The nix code is clearer and
structured better.
The Haskell code improved in response to the nix changes. I needed to use a
qualified path instead of the abspath because the BIZ_ROOT changes based on
whether bild runs in nix or runs in the user environment.
Rather than passing every argument into Builder.nix, now I just pass the json
from bild and deconstruct it in nix. This is obviously a much better design and
it only came to be after sleeping on it the other night.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
This is rough, I should move it up in the directory hierarchy and clean up the
nix files, but that can all come later. Just gonna test it out for now. Will
announce it tomorrow afternoon.
|
|
Rebuilt email server, started wireguard setup.
|
|
|
|
Getting me closer to the latest GHC. This release also includes my own packages
that I submitted some time ago.
GHCJS is not present in 21.05 for some reason, but I think it's back in master,
so I might do another upgrade soon, but for now I just disabled my GHCJS
support. I'm not really using it anyway.
I also had to bring it string-quote, update nixos-mailserver, and a few other
things.
|
|
This way I can develop on nixpkgs directly, and directly send patches upstream,
instead of trying to copy files back and forth and work with overlays.
Of course with private stuff that I will never publish, I should use overlays,
but that will probably not be very many things, I imagine.
|
|
|
|
The correct way to do this would be to use my own nixpkgs fork published
at git.simatime.com, but to do that I need to setup a public git repo,
so until then I have to do it this way, which is fine.
|
|
This allows us to use nix-build as a check that bild is working.
I think bild sometimes hangs because it doesn't get input from nix-build? I'm
not sure, but one workaround is to run nix-build on the target, and then bild
will just get the cached build.
|
|
This includes deployment and implementation.
As part of sprint-49, here are the startup progress questions:
- Are you on track?
- Yes? I'm making progress toward a proper launch.
- Are you launched?
- No
- How many weeks to launch?
- I would say 4 but it's probably more like 8
- How many (prospective) users have you talked to in the last week?
- 2, Kyle and his manager, see below
- What have you learned from them?
- Kyle thought the metrics were interesting.
- His manager thought the metrics were kinda useful but didn't think they
really helped people ship higher quality code faster. So that's the rub: I
have to show how this can make devs ship higher quality code faster; or,
develop a set of features that improve those things.
- Kyle pointed out that the clustering feature of devalloc will find optimal
pairings *and* identify team silos that could be improved, so that's
important to remember and might be a good angle in the future.
- On a scale of 1-10, what is your morale?
- 6 maybe
- What most improved your primary metric?
- Well I was able to deploy something within in the week, whereas before I had
zero deploys per week. So that's an improvement.
- What is your biggest obstacle?
- Finding customers to talk to.
- Also the thing isn't really built yet, I just have a python script. I need
to build the real SaaS product
- What are your top 1-3 goals for next week?
- Find a single customer I can work with on an ongoing basis
- I should ask around my network to see if I have any second-order
connections that would be willing to work with me (Asher, Chad,
previous bosses, etc)
- Build out the front-end of the website (it's very simple, would just need a
basic miso module and deployment)
- Figure out how to connect/auth to the Github API so I can start building the
SaaS version of the product
Some user feedback from my friend Kyle. This comes from his engineering manager:
> "Looks neat. If it were priced low enough I could see using it to run reports
> as part of an overall package. A lot of those metrics don't matter too much to
> me as a manager though A lot of these code quality tools are handy info but I
> don't feel like they make people ship code any faster or any higher quality
> Things like CodeClimate work well for Jrs though to avoid obvious static type
> mistakes"
Kyle provided some additional comments:
> he might have been an unusual case. Jared's not big into metrics, Pivotal
> Tracker point estimates, or things like that... He's far more into qualitative
> feedback, like retrospectives and 1:1s
>
> I think it's definitely neat data! I certainly like the collaboration analysis
>
> It's interesting, we recently had a pair where two devs didn't work well
> together, that could be represented here. Though, we didn't want to avoid
> having them work together, we wanted them to find a work style that worked for
> both of them
And that's a good point: devalloc will find optimal pairings *and* points where
you could improve team cohesiveness.
|
|
Also had to capitalize some stuff, and move some nix files around and rename
the metadata directive from 'exe' to 'out' because that just makes more sense,
and fix some compiler errors. But now bild treats both nix and hs files as
buildable things. So that's cool.
One interesting example is Biz/Pie.{nix,hs} - I can either create a dev build of
the hs file with ghc, or I can create a fully-encapsulated nix build. Its nice
to have both options because a dev build with ghc takes half the amount of time,
and I can rely on my locally cached hi and ho files. I think this shows the
power of bild, but also can be a somewhat subtle thing.
The issue really is with the separate command calls in nix builds vs dev builds.
I figure there are a few ways to fix this:
1. Try to use bild inside the nix rules. That could be interesting, but could
also lead to some weird behavior or worm holes forming.
2. Extract the command line invocation into a separate file, some kind of
really simple template that gets pulled into both programs.
It is important to consider that in the future I might want to have bild do a
module-by-module nix build of programs, but I'm not sure how that would effect
my choice here.
|
