| 6 Nov 2023 |
 alejandrosame | I'm with you that being too terse is in general problematic for documentation. | 17:04:09 |
 @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 | isn't that the 1st of 1970? To which we added a few seconds because of gnumake? | 18:02:01 |
 @linus:schreibt.jetzt | ZIP can only represent dates starting from 1980, my guess is that that's why it would be 1980 and not 1970 | 18:04:44 |
| @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
: "${SOURCE_DATE_EPOCH:=315532800}"
| 18:28:44 |
 infinisil | I've drafted a small RFC to use nix.dev as the canonical name (but there's also alternatives), would appreciate some quick feedback: https://github.com/nix-rfc-canonical-domain/rfcs/blob/canonical-domain/rfcs/1000-canonical-domain.md | 20:36:48 |
| infinisil | * I've drafted a small RFC to use nix.dev as the canonical domain name (but there's also alternatives), would appreciate some quick feedback: https://github.com/nix-rfc-canonical-domain/rfcs/blob/canonical-domain/rfcs/1000-canonical-domain.md | 20:37:52 |
 fricklerhandwerk | In reply to @infinisil:matrix.org
I've drafted a small RFC to use nix.dev as the canonical domain name (but there's also alternatives), would appreciate some quick feedback: https://github.com/nix-rfc-canonical-domain/rfcs/blob/canonical-domain/rfcs/1000-canonical-domain.md There should be very few things that deserve an RFC. This is one of them. | 20:41:34 |
| @delroth:delroth.net | this feels like it should have a mention of the nixos dot com problem :-) | 20:44:40 |
| @delroth:delroth.net | * this RFC feels like it should have a mention of the nixos dot com problem :-) | 20:44:52 |
| fricklerhandwerk | In reply to @delroth:delroth.net
this RFC feels like it should have a mention of the nixos dot com problem :-) Right. And if it comes to a conclusion we may want to task the foundation to exercise their trademark rights on that basis. | 20:52:55 |
| infinisil | Btw I also asked in the governance room, where there's some more discussion already: https://matrix.to/#/!VyoUhyWvlhSpFWWxHL:matrix.org/$WUV3OUgwKv_EQkOVQTSOE6WCjbck9oof4nEmzLSy1p8?via=nixos.org&via=matrix.org&via=matrix.dapp.org.uk | 20:55:59 |
| 7 Nov 2023 |
|  chreekat left the room. | 06:58:35 |
 asymmetric | 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 | 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 | 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 | 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 | 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 | * 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 | It's a bit non-standard, but it seems fine | 02:27:59 |
| fricklerhandwerk | 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 | do we have any doc writing guidelines such as "try to avoid words like 'simply'"? | 09:10:41 |
| fricklerhandwerk | 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 | 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 | in 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 |
| fricklerhandwerk | In short: what’s simple for you may be impossible for others. Avoiding that is in line with our stance not to assume things about the reader | 10:03:08 |
| fricklerhandwerk | * In short: what’s simple for you may be impossible for others. Avoiding that is in line with our stance not to assume things about the reader and not making value judgements | 10:03:38 |
| fricklerhandwerk | That’s why for instance in reviews I always suggest alternatives to “as you can see…” or “you will see an output…” – no, not everyone can see. | 10:05:55 |
| fricklerhandwerk | There are entire software companies full of people who can’t see. | 10:07:28 |
| asymmetric | My pet peeve is "trivial" 😂 | 10:45:38 |
