Skip to content
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

Add move.nix to flake manual #533

Open
wants to merge 1 commit into
base: main
Choose a base branch
from
Open

Conversation

macalinao
Copy link

No description provided.

@ncfavier
Copy link
Member

ncfavier commented Sep 6, 2022

This is an index of flakes that are useful to the community, not a place to advertise your company, much less your random web3 thing nobody asked for.

@ncfavier ncfavier closed this Sep 6, 2022
@macalinao
Copy link
Author

Hey @ncfavier -- I didn't make Move! I've just built a lot of tooling around it, and to my knowledge there are a lot of competing businesses building on top of it.

IOHK is also listed in here. I would argue that this flake should be in here for the same reason.

Thanks and I hope you can understand.

@ysndr
Copy link
Member

ysndr commented Sep 7, 2022

I'm going to reopen this because there is actually no manifested guideline of what goes into the flake search and what not (#486).

Its not a guarantee that this will be merged but

a) @MatthewCroughan has a point in #510
b) Evidently this is currently not necessarily "an index of flakes that are useful for the community"

  • ie. which community? (nix or general open source)
  • bitcoin-nix, pinpox/nixos

I see a point in inclusivity as well as I see it in excluding commercial projects (I cant tell if moveco s but it sounds like it)
I'm not quite a proponent for web3 stuff either personally, but I would like to grant this a chance in a proper discussion.
Once we have a guideline, this might entail removing specific flakes from the current registry or other pending ones to be added.

tl;dr

Reopend to as pending
Waiting for an outcome on #486

@ysndr ysndr reopened this Sep 7, 2022
@ysndr ysndr added the blocked Blocked for Merge label Sep 7, 2022
@macalinao
Copy link
Author

I'm going to reopen this because there is actually no manifested guideline of what goes into the flake search and what not (#486).

Its not a guarantee that this will be merged but

a) @MatthewCroughan has a point in #510

b) Evidently this is currently not necessarily "an index of flakes that are useful for the community"

  • ie. which community? (nix or general open source)

  • bitcoin-nix, pinpox/nixos

I see a point in inclusivity as well as I see it in excluding commercial projects (I cant tell if moveco s but it sounds like it)

I'm not quite a proponent for web3 stuff either personally, but I would like to grant this a chance in a proper discussion.

Once we have a guideline, this might entail removing specific flakes from the current registry or other pending ones to be added.

tl;dr

Reopend to as pending

Waiting for an outcome on #486

Just to be clear--movingco is not a commercial project. In fact, I'm happy to give the rights to the move.nix repo to NixOS (actually, I'm fine giving away the entire GitHub organization).

This is a flake that just builds open source software, most of which is blockchain related.

And I would argue that the world needs Move-- over $50B have been hacked from smart contracts, and Move reduces smart contract risk greatly. While it may not affect you personally, it has affected many people in seriously detrimental ways. Combining Move with Nix adds another level of safety by encouraging the use of good CI practices and by making binaries more accessible.

Yes you may disagree with the idea of crypto in general, but the solution is not to make software more crappy. The solution is to move the world over to Nix, NixOS, and Apache2 open source.

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
blocked Blocked for Merge flake
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

4 participants