Nix Documentation | 399 Members | |
| Discussion about documentation improvements around the Nix ecosystem | 78 Servers |
| Sender | Message | Time |
|---|---|---|
| 12 Jan 2024 | ||
In reply to @9999years:matrix.orginspired by this | 10:45:34 | |
In reply to @asymmetric:matrix.dapp.org.uk hmm, the label description says "Meta-discussion about documentation and its workflow", so maybe i'm wrong that it should be applied to those prs? should documentation PRs have that label, or not? | 10:50:58 | |
| asymmetric: Sounds like the label description should be updated then :) | 11:16:22 | |
In reply to @infinisil:matrix.orgthing is, we also have a "8.has: documentation` label, which i think gets automatically applied | 11:17:45 | |
| so maybe the topic label is indeed for meta discussions | 11:18:02 | |
| Oh I see | 11:18:07 | |
| I feel like the content vs infra distinction sounds better | 11:19:07 | |
In reply to @infinisil:matrix.orgso are you arguing for changing, or keeping? | 11:21:22 | |
In reply to @infinisil:matrix.org* so are you arguing for changing, or keeping, the descriptions? | 11:21:30 | |
| asymmetric: Changing both the label names and descriptions to be more obvious | 12:05:44 | |
From the little I've seen, 6.topic: documentation doesn't have automation around it, so it has to be manually applied, which leads to it not being used enough/appropriately | 12:24:19 | |
| yeah, hence my recommendation to use it. but anyway, the main goal is that we don't forget prs, so really whichever one gets applied most consistently and matches our needs is fine by me | 12:38:03 | |
| Just went through a rabbithole when creating a PR, and have a few questions that I think would be better asked here rather than spending even more time trying to dig things:
| 14:45:38 | |
| no problem's gonna be solved by me bitching in here, sorry, i should have kept it to myself. thanks for the intervention. i'll try to contribute meaningfully and regulate my aversion to various comms styles. | 15:45:20 | |
| I think your contribution was fine and valuable feedback to the team, I wouldn't like to lose out on those kinds of contributions personally | 16:01:12 | |
In reply to @danielsidhion:nixos.devNo idea about the first, but the second one oh no.. | 16:15:33 | |
| Indeed there should be commits to https://github.com/NixOS/nixos-homepage/commits/master/ every day to update the website with the latest versions, but this apparently broke.. | 16:15:58 | |
| Lol: https://github.com/NixOS/nixos-homepage/actions/runs/7496066602/job/20407403287#step:5:12 | 16:16:18 | |
| 16:16:29 | |
| Wait there's not even a deprecation message | 16:19:13 | |
| Wait what, the current latest version is 2.19.2, which does have a deprecation message (tried it locally):
| 16:21:25 | |
| Investigating.. | 16:22:34 | |
| danielsidhion: it's not on the list, but i'm starting to apply your function argument defintion list stuff to a PR I already have open... https://github.com/NixOS/nixpkgs/pull/277534/files | 16:27:35 | |
| Ohh, something really bad might be happening, the Nixpkgs master jobset doesn't exist anymore | 16:28:31 | |
| Never mind, it's just not listed in https://hydra.nixos.org/project/nixpkgs anymore, it does still exist: https://hydra.nixos.org/jobset/nixpkgs/trunk | 16:29:50 | |
In reply to @mcdonc:matrix.orgThis is amazing, thanks a lot! No need to update your PR again, but I just opened https://github.com/NixOS/nixpkgs/pull/280520 to add a few more conventions that I discussed in the latest meeting. | 16:31:33 | |
| great... i'll try to put that file in shape | 16:35:10 | |
In reply to @infinisil:matrix.orgFigured it out, 2.19.1 doesn't have the deprecation warning. Looks like that was only added in 2.19.2 | 16:35:37 | |
| And actually, the cachix-install-action was just updated to use 2.19.2 today, so maybe the homepage will update just by forcing a retry | 16:36:27 | |
| Trying it here: https://github.com/NixOS/nixos-homepage/actions/runs/7504900929/job/20432973247 | 16:37:21 | |