| 12 Dec 2024 |
 @hexa:lossy.network | yeah, I thought about that as well, but it generally fluctuates too much | 15:30:18 |
| @hexa:lossy.network | they're swapping out dependencies for the same component every other release and we fail to clean up unused deps already | 15:30:59 |
 dotlambda | We'd have write a script that keeps the passthru.tests up to date | 15:31:27 |
| dotlambda | * We'd have to write a script that keeps the
passthru.tests up to date | 15:31:51 |
| @hexa:lossy.network | sorry for being the naysayer in this conversation fwiw 😄 | 15:31:55 |
| dotlambda | * We'd have to write a script that keeps the `passthru.tests` up to date | 15:32:14 |
| @hexa:lossy.network | there is two things to loose:
a) hydra for bisects
b) nixpkgs-review for dependency bumps | 15:33:19 |
| @hexa:lossy.network | I'd much rather loose a) than b) | 15:33:49 |
| @hexa:lossy.network | * there is two things to loose:
a) hydra builds for per-component bisects
b) nixpkgs-review for dependency bumps | 15:34:11 |
| dotlambda | I don't know what you mean by a) | 15:34:28 |
| @hexa:lossy.network | 
Download image.png | 15:35:19 |
| @hexa:lossy.network | knowning when something broke | 15:35:31 |
| @hexa:lossy.network | * knowing when something broke | 15:35:36 |
| @hexa:lossy.network | in terms of good/bad bisect starting points | 15:36:08 |
| @hexa:lossy.network | nixpkgs-review currently does not take passthru.tests into account | 15:36:51 |
| dotlambda | Well, that seems like an obvious thing to give up but also nobody minds it being there | 15:37:07 |
| @hexa:lossy.network | and ofborg is currently not in a position to help here without being reworked | 15:37:13 |
| @hexa:lossy.network | * and ofborg is currently not in a position to help without first being reworked | 15:38:15 |
| @hexa:lossy.network | so where would you do that subtraction? | 15:39:21 |
| dotlambda | In reply to @hexa:lossy.network
so where would you do that subtraction? Probably in the GitHub CI script | 15:39:50 |
| @hexa:lossy.network | which means we probably need to convince infinisil | 15:40:18 |
| dotlambda | In reply to @hexa:lossy.network
which means we probably need to convince infinisil which should be easier if it's tests rather than something HA specific | 15:41:03 |
| @hexa:lossy.network | certainly | 15:41:22 |
 @qbit:tapenet.org | can I run esphome on another machine and have my machine running home-assistant connect to it? (i assume so because host, port options..) | 17:39:40 |
| @qbit:tapenet.org | and follow up question, where does one set the "api" bit? | 17:40:00 |
| @qbit:tapenet.org | Can't connect to ESP. Please make sure your YAML file contains an 'api:' line. is the error I get when I try to add the remote esphome instance to my HA | 17:40:24 |
| @qbit:tapenet.org | oh. maybe it's because I don't have anything defined in esphome? | 19:06:02 |
| @hexa:lossy.network | yeah, that talks about your esphome config | 19:38:45 |
| @qbit:tapenet.org | i see - added something and it popped into HA, ty! | 20:35:09 |
 spacekitteh | In reply to @hexa:lossy.network
to be fair, they are rebuilds, and unpacking the home-assistant source 900 times has a certain cost to it why can't it cache those results? :S | 22:04:26 |
