I track and version my Nushell environment and configuration in a public repository.
I added a GitHub Actions workflow that tests these files. That will ensure a more defined environment and prerequisites/assumptions, given that they have to be set up in the workflow configuration. Given that I mostly work on Windows, but set up the CI to run on Linux/Ubuntu, it will also ensure platform neutrality.
Since Nushell version 0.101.0, there's no need for a default, base env.nu or config.nu, and the nu binary can be called with only the custom, minimal env and config files.
The nu binary offers --env-config and --config parameters.
I noticed that when using them, errors do not lead to error exist codes; nu will continue execution and report success despite env or config not loading [correctly]. (Bug Ticket #14745)
Do you version your environment configuration? Only locally, or with a hosted repository as a backup or to share? Do you run automated tests on it?
This reads like such diffuse nothing-speak. "We will do less but remain committed." It's a contradiction. Doesn't help that one person gives a speech then the company makes clarifications which read like pulling back or lying/delaying about where leadership is pushing towards.
The article does a decent job exploring what it could mean.
Neither closed core nor malicious runtime-platform switches are in the spirit of open source, or can be called truly or fully open source.
They should have made a concrete plan first, and then announced and implemented that. But I guess we can be thankful we can see signs of where they may be headed, and that could push negative feedback or make people more cautious and aware of their practices and changes.