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

digital ocean: enp0s3 -> ens3 #765

wants to merge 1 commit into from


Copy link

@disassembler disassembler commented Nov 6, 2017

This addresses #742 although would break anything with older kernels with the enp0s3 device.

Copy link

@Mic92 Mic92 commented Nov 8, 2017

Could it be checked what the interface name is?

Copy link

@rbvermaa rbvermaa commented Nov 14, 2017

Yeah, we should be able to set the name based on the NixOS version (system.nixosVersion), right?

Copy link

@Mic92 Mic92 commented Nov 14, 2017

From my understanding this happens in ubuntu and not nixos? So checking nixosVersion should be not the correct solution.

Copy link

@domenkozar domenkozar commented Nov 20, 2017

It happens on digitalocean running nixos.

Copy link

@coretemp coretemp commented Jul 28, 2018

Hard coding such constants seems to be a flawed approach requiring a ton of maintenance(they change scheme every few years). I have little doubt that there is a way to do these things dynamically and in a way that is only kernel dependent (e.g. Linux or FreeBSD) and not on a particular version.

Perhaps it could be done in a platform independent way by using some cross-platform tools.

Another thing I don't really like is that a PR is opened in which the word "breaks" occurs. OTOH, perhaps we should be happy that the disassembler took the time to improve something to the DigitalOcean user community. I suppose what it comes down to is whether it would constitute a net "improvement" (which is why it isn't merged yet). If breaking something means we don't merge it, we should just be honest about that and thank disassembler for the attempt and close the PR. I don't know what the correct response is, but having 5 people (including me) look at it, seems to be a waste of resources. One qualified reviewer is economically optimal according to research. While no money changes hands, there are such limits as time and attention.

I vote to close this PR, just to draw a line.

Copy link

@grahamc grahamc commented Mar 26, 2020


Thank you for this PR.

In the past several months, some major changes have taken place in

  1. Backends have been removed, preferring a plugin-based architecture.
    Here are some of them:

  2. NixOps Core has been updated to be Python 3 only, and at the
    same time, MyPy type hints have been added and are now strictly
    required during CI.

This is all accumulating in to what I hope will be a NixOps 2.0
. There is a tracking issue for that:
#1242 . It is possible that
more core changes will be made to NixOps for this release, with a
focus on simplifying NixOps core and making it easier to use and work

My hope is that by adding types and more thorough automated testing,
it will be easier for contributors to make improvements, and for
contributions like this one to merge in the future.

However, because of the major changes, it has become likely that this
PR cannot merge right now as it is. The backlog of now-unmergable PRs
makes it hard to see which ones are being kept up to date.

If you would like to see this merge, please bring it up to date with
master and reopen it
. If the or mypy type checking fails, please
correct any issues and then reopen it. I will be looking primarily at
open PRs whose tests are all green.

Thank you again for the work you've done here, I am sorry to be
closing it now.


@grahamc grahamc closed this Mar 26, 2020
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
None yet
Linked issues

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

None yet

6 participants
You can’t perform that action at this time.