 | Nix Documentation | 422 Members |
| Discussion about documentation improvements around the Nix ecosystem | 87 Servers |
| Nix Documentation | 422 Members |
| Discussion about documentation improvements around the Nix ecosystem | 87 Servers |
| Sender | Message | Time |
|---|---|---|
| 2 Jan 2024 | ||
 asymmetric | * but for something that i'm not sure we should be maintaining ourselves? it seems like for low-stakes (?) things like "nixos friendly hosters", a wiki provides less friction | 11:27:57 |
| asymmetric | * but for something that i'm not sure we should be maintaining ourselves? it seems like for low-stakes (?) things like "nixos friendly hosters", a wiki provides less friction for users and takes off some work from the docs team | 11:28:18 |
| asymmetric | or is the idea that everything that's now in nix.wiki + nixlang.wiki should eventually be absorbed by nix.dev? | 11:28:52 |
| asymmetric | * but for something that i'm not sure we should be maintaining ourselves? it seems like for low-stakes (?) things like "nixos friendly hosters", a wiki provides less friction for users and takes off some work from the docs team's plate | 11:29:10 |
| asymmetric | * but for something that i'm not sure we should be maintaining ourselves? it seems like for low-stakes (?) things like "nixos friendly hosters", a wiki provides less friction for users and takes some work off the docs team's plate | 11:29:18 |
 fricklerhandwerk | In reply to @asymmetric:matrix.dapp.org.ukAbsolutely not. We certainly need a place for a class of crowd-maintained information, everything else is not manageable. | 14:03:47 |
| asymmetric | In reply to @fricklerhandwerk:matrix.orgdo we have some rough principle of what should not go into nix.dev? i can think of "anything that doesn't fit diàtaxis", but that seems a bit unsatisfying | 14:37:08 |
| fricklerhandwerk | A few unstructured thoughts:
Conversely, what should go into nix.dev are things that don’t fit anywhere else: cross-cutting concerns that aren’t specific to any ecosystem component or don’t have a better place to live. Ideally that would be very little. | 15:26:34 |
| asymmetric | but we've just moved the nix ref manual to nix.dev? | 15:30:59 |
| fricklerhandwerk | In reply to @asymmetric:matrix.dapp.org.ukThis just where it’s hosted. I read your question as “which content should be part of the nix.dev source” | 15:56:55 |
| asymmetric | yeah good point | 15:57:44 |
| 3 Jan 2024 | ||
 @jade_:matrix.org | imo: our module system docs are faulty, in that you can't write guide level stuff in them | 12:49:01 |
| @jade_:matrix.org | which is a symptom of "services.jellyfin" or whatever not being a distinct entity in the module system and thus you can't attach docs to it | 12:49:29 |
| @jade_:matrix.org | it would be sick if we could attach docs to such things | 12:49:42 |
 @qyriad:matrix.org | Oh that would be fantastic | 12:54:06 |
 raitobezarius | Same for changelogs in practice | 14:03:11 |
 nikstur changed their display name from nikstur (DECT 5643) to nikstur. | 15:33:23 | |
 Chris McDonough | i'm going to try to join the the nix documentation meeting tomorrow; can someone acknowledge that they see this message | 19:49:52 |
| Chris McDonough | ty! | 20:06:39 |
 @johannes.kirschbauer:scs.ems.host | I'll join the meeting as well. I could need some help with migration of the nixpkgs manual rendering. (nixos-render-docs) I'd like to discuss the future of that tooling after rfc145 was merged. Who has the ownership about this? @pennae or fricklerhandwerk ? | 20:52:25 |
| @johannes.kirschbauer:scs.ems.host | * I'll join the meeting as well. I could need some help with migration of the nixpkgs manual rendering. (nixos-render-docs) I'd like to discuss the future of that tooling after rfc145 was merged. Who has the ownership about this? @pennae or fricklerhandwerk ? | 20:52:39 |
| fricklerhandwerk | In reply to @johannes.kirschbauer:scs.ems.host@pennae wrote all of it, I have only cursory knowledge of that code | 23:44:11 |
| fricklerhandwerk | Also I won’t be able to participate in meetings in the next two months or so | 23:44:53 |
| 4 Jan 2024 | ||
 infinisil | Johannes Kirschbauer @hsjobeki: I'll be there in the meeting, we could also take a look at the nixdoc PR | 01:39:44 |
 danielsidhion | infinisil: PR to document the conventions as discussed in the meeting: https://github.com/NixOS/nixpkgs/pull/278762 I've been adding this documentation-reviewers team on my PRs because it seems more appropriate than adding the documentation team. Is this appropriate, or should I just stick to adding the documentation team instead? | 20:05:59 |
| infinisil | danielsidhion: No that's perfect :) | 20:06:38 |
| danielsidhion | Also as discussed in the meeting, here's a quick overview of what I'm doing: for no reason at all, I decided it would be a good idea to go through the Nixpkgs manual source and update all examples to the admonition syntax as specified in the doc readme. As I did this, I realised that other things could also be updated to follow a more consistent style, and I also started finding a lot of outdated content in the manual, which I'm making an effort to also update. More than one person has asked how they could help, so I created a tracking issue here: https://github.com/NixOS/nixpkgs/issues/278769 | 20:34:17 |
| danielsidhion | Chris McDonough: check the message above. I'm also creating some more issues on the nixpkgs repo for things I find as I read the manual. Those are either for extra documentation, or things in nixpkgs itself. I'd rather not paste a bunch of links here, but you can check issues I opened in the nixpkgs repo (I'm @danielsidhion there too) | 20:36:24 |
| infinisil | danielsidhion: Very nice! | 21:05:55 |
| 5 Jan 2024 | ||
| asymmetric | In reply to @danielsidhion:nixos.devI wonder if we could get an LLM do tackle these refactors? It seems pretty algorithmic, and like it should work, but I have no experience with them so I don’t really know | 10:07:39 |