How do you figure? I'm not involved with either project, but to my outsider eyes it seems like two completely different implementations of the same basic idea, with configuration that only looks necessarily similar to (i.e. there are only so many ways to write "here's how to look for secrets in 1Password" using TOML, which is a common configuration language and also one heavily used in the Rust ecosystem).
Also, devenv and mise also feel like different animals to me. I can't imagine many scenarios where I'd use them interchangeably.
Look at the problem statement, it's exactly the same. When I designed secretspec, I researched the space and no other tool approached secrets in such a way.
Syntax of toml is almost identical, the CLI as well.
It even has the same vocabulary.
I didn't dig deeper though, but I'd be surprised not to find more :)
[secrets.DATABASE_URL]
provider = "onepass"
value = "Database" # ← Item name in 1Password (fetches 'password' field)
[secrets.DB_USERNAME]
provider = "onepass"
value = "Database/username" # ← Specific field
[secrets.API_KEY]
provider = "onepass"
value = "op://Development/API Keys/credential" # ←
Is the similarity that they both refer to providers (as did Terraform and countless other config tools before it)? Or profiles (like aws-cli and countless other config tools before it)? Because other than that, I'm not really seeing it. And if I hadn't seen either of these, and my boss ordered me to implement something like them, I almost guarantee I'd use similar names for things because those are the common terms for them in industry.
Honestly, I'm not invested in either of these. They both look nifty, but I couldn't personally care less if either (or both or neither) of these catch on and become standards. I'm only commenting here because your statement here and on the linked discussion[2] ("it's almost a verbatim copy") seems incredibly aggressive, and to me, quite offputting. They don't look alike at all to me, other than that they both aim to do similar things and thus will have some natural overlap in terminology.
> I'm asking for an attribution given that the tool was copied, how is that aggressive?
Because it implies that the tool is copied. To me, they look similar, in a way that all tools like this are going to look somewhat similar.
> - fnix imports, - secretspec extends
So, they both have ways to slurp in other files so that you can kind of emulate inheritance. They call them different things, but the idea's similar: they both look similar to mise's configuration hierarchy, which predates both tools.[0]
> - secretspec profiles, - fnix profiles
They both support named profiles like "dev", "production", etc... like so many other devops tools that I'm having a hard time narrowing it down to one pre-existing example among thousands.
No, I'm still not seeing it. Fnox seems to be a copy of secretspec in the same way that Nginx is a copy of Apache, because they both do similar things and have config files that talk about domain names and ports and paths and certificates.
I was with you that there are similarities & was happy to see another take.
Its a very strong & weight claim to say that fnox is a copy of secretspec though. There can be a lot of overlap. But there have been lots of others similar efforts too, such as sops, and many before.
It's much too complicated in my book to be making big claims like copying. That really pisses me against the software
I don't see it, and like the other commenters, it seems like the design space is just constrained enough that the projects would have to have some similarities.
Regardless, if you think you're being copied, just copy right back. I suggest imitating the DX.
As someone who tried devenv (and nix-darwin for a while), before eventually returning to homebrew and mise, I really wanted to like it, but the nix complexity kept leaking out.
Mise does maybe 80% of what I did with devenv, but at only 1% of the hassle.
