!avYyleMexqjFHoqrME:nixos.org

Nix Documentation

438 Members
Discussion about documentation improvements around the Nix ecosystem92 Servers

Load older messages


SenderMessageTime
6 Nov 2023
@proofconstruction:matrix.orgproofconstruction In case I just mass review-requested everyone on nix.dev, I apologize. I was trying to fix an erroneous push. Who are the administrators of the repo? We should enable branch protection on master to require a PR with approval before merging 16:42:33
@delroth:delroth.net@delroth:delroth.netfun artifact of building nix.dev with flakes: the footer says "Copyright 2016-1980"16:46:24
@delroth:delroth.net@delroth:delroth.net * fun artifact of building nix.dev with nix: the footer says "Copyright 2016-1980"16:46:31
@nbp:mozilla.orgnbpWait, this is not 1970?16:52:28
@alejandrosame:matrix.orgalejandrosame
In reply to @infinisil:matrix.org
Hmm I think reference docs can also use overviews of its parts, it doesn't really fit into tutorials, guides or explanation
The way I see it is like dictionaries: you can add extra sections (intros, overviews, historical explanations, etc) but the indexing of the entries is alphabetical to ease its navigation.
17:02:30
@alejandrosame:matrix.orgalejandrosameI'm with you that being too terse is in general problematic for documentation.17:04:09
@delroth:delroth.net@delroth:delroth.net
In reply to @nbp:mozilla.org
Wait, this is not 1970?
I think 1980 is the default SOURCE_DATE_EPOCH
17:51:44
@nbp:mozilla.orgnbpisn't that the 1st of 1970? To which we added a few seconds because of gnumake?18:02:01
@linus:schreibt.jetztLinux HackermanZIP can only represent dates starting from 1980, my guess is that that's why it would be 1980 and not 197018:04:44
@delroth:delroth.net@delroth:delroth.net
# Set a fallback default value for SOURCE_DATE_EPOCH, used by some build tools
# to provide a deterministic substitute for the "current" time. Note that
# 315532800 = 1980-01-01 12:00:00. We use this date because python's wheel
# implementation uses zip archive and zip does not support dates going back to
# 1970.
export SOURCE_DATE_EPOCH
: "${SOURCE_DATE_EPOCH:=315532800}"
18:28:44
@infinisil:matrix.orginfinisilI've drafted a small RFC to use nix.dev as the canonical name (but there's also alternatives), would appreciate some quick feedback: https://github.com/nix-rfc-canonical-domain/rfcs/blob/canonical-domain/rfcs/1000-canonical-domain.md20:36:48
@infinisil:matrix.orginfinisil * I've drafted a small RFC to use nix.dev as the canonical domain name (but there's also alternatives), would appreciate some quick feedback: https://github.com/nix-rfc-canonical-domain/rfcs/blob/canonical-domain/rfcs/1000-canonical-domain.md20:37:52
@fricklerhandwerk:matrix.orgfricklerhandwerk
In reply to @infinisil:matrix.org
I've drafted a small RFC to use nix.dev as the canonical domain name (but there's also alternatives), would appreciate some quick feedback: https://github.com/nix-rfc-canonical-domain/rfcs/blob/canonical-domain/rfcs/1000-canonical-domain.md
There should be very few things that deserve an RFC. This is one of them.
20:41:34
@delroth:delroth.net@delroth:delroth.netthis feels like it should have a mention of the nixos dot com problem :-)20:44:40
@delroth:delroth.net@delroth:delroth.net * this RFC feels like it should have a mention of the nixos dot com problem :-)20:44:52
@fricklerhandwerk:matrix.orgfricklerhandwerk
In reply to @delroth:delroth.net
this RFC feels like it should have a mention of the nixos dot com problem :-)
Right. And if it comes to a conclusion we may want to task the foundation to exercise their trademark rights on that basis.
20:52:55
@infinisil:matrix.orginfinisilBtw I also asked in the governance room, where there's some more discussion already: https://matrix.to/#/!VyoUhyWvlhSpFWWxHL:matrix.org/$WUV3OUgwKv_EQkOVQTSOE6WCjbck9oof4nEmzLSy1p8?via=nixos.org&via=matrix.org&via=matrix.dapp.org.uk20:55:59
7 Nov 2023
@b:chreekat.netchreekat left the room.06:58:35
@asymmetric:matrix.dapp.org.ukasymmetric
In reply to @infinisil:matrix.org
I've drafted a small RFC to use nix.dev as the canonical domain name (but there's also alternatives), would appreciate some quick feedback: https://github.com/nix-rfc-canonical-domain/rfcs/blob/canonical-domain/rfcs/1000-canonical-domain.md
in future work you could list that the implementation of the currently two websites could be unified. or maybe not. but it's a question that i had. you could also declare it as explicitly out of scope.
10:05:35
@infinisil:matrix.orginfinisil
In reply to @asymmetric:matrix.dapp.org.uk
in future work you could list that the implementation of the currently two websites could be unified. or maybe not. but it's a question that i had. you could also declare it as explicitly out of scope.
Sounds good, can you PR that? :D
10:52:14
@asymmetric:matrix.dapp.org.ukasymmetric
In reply to @infinisil:matrix.org
Sounds good, can you PR that? :D
as future work or as out of scope?
10:54:21
@infinisil:matrix.orginfinisil
In reply to @asymmetric:matrix.dapp.org.uk
as future work or as out of scope?
I don't think there's an out of scope section. Future work sounds good
10:56:06
8 Nov 2023
@fricklerhandwerk:matrix.orgfricklerhandwerk

https://discourse.nixos.org/t/a-portable-nix-shell-shebang/35148/2

What do you think? If we want this, anyone interested in seeing it through?

00:26:48
@fricklerhandwerk:matrix.orgfricklerhandwerk * https://discourse.nixos.org/t/a-portable-nix-shell-shebang/35148/2
What do you think? 👍👎? If we want this, anyone interested in seeing it through?
00:27:31
@infinisil:matrix.orginfinisilIt's a bit non-standard, but it seems fine02:27:59
@fricklerhandwerk:matrix.orgfricklerhandwerk
In reply to @infinisil:matrix.org
It's a bit non-standard, but it seems fine
We could iterate on it
07:38:23
9 Nov 2023
@raboof:matrix.orgraboofdo we have any doc writing guidelines such as "try to avoid words like 'simply'"?09:10:41
@fricklerhandwerk:matrix.orgfricklerhandwerk
In reply to @raboof:matrix.org
do we have any doc writing guidelines such as "try to avoid words like 'simply'"?

Whe have a style guide for nix.dev https://nix.dev/contributing/documentation/style-guide

but no specific note on “simply”.

09:33:34
@asymmetric:matrix.dapp.org.ukasymmetric
In reply to @raboof:matrix.org
do we have any doc writing guidelines such as "try to avoid words like 'simply'"?
what's your beef with "simply"? 😃
09:50:15
@raboof:matrix.orgraboofin short, documentation is almost always better without it: it is typically added to encourage the reader, but often has the opposite effect and may even appear condescending, especially when the reader runs into trouble trying to apply the suggestions from the documentation. Best-case it's mostly just noise. I'm sure others have motivated this better than I can in a few sentences though, I can see if I can dig up any good references later - first wanted to see if we had any already.09:55:08

Show newer messages


Back to Room ListRoom Version: 6