| 21 Apr 2024 |
 infinisil | In reply to @willbush:matrix.org
Question on pull request etiquette.
The people I work with at work, we happen to be using GitHub as well, and the person creating the PR usually merges the PR. If they want it merged immediately after approval, then they check an auto-merge box (enable in repo settings).
I'm not very experienced working with others in open source (yet :D). What is proper PR etiquette?
The approach I'm using and I think works really well, is to mark PRs as a draft if you don't think they're ready for merging. So by default, any non-draft PR is ready for merge according to the author | 11:46:57 |
| infinisil | willbush This way, you can also approve a PR, but still wait for others to take a look. Like "LGTM but I'd like @foo to also check it out" | 11:47:48 |
| infinisil | But if you feel confident that nobody else needs to look at it, you can merge it right away | 11:48:29 |
 terru | Question about environment variables which nixpkgs reads to configure itself: these all have the prefix NIXPKGS_ or NIXOS_, except NIX_ABORT_ON_WARN. I find this very confusing, as it suggests that this variable is read by nix itself, which it is not. It was introduced in #140763, apparently without consideration of this inconsistency. Is there any good reason why it should not be called NIXPKGS_ABORT_ON_WARN instead, and if not, what is the process to change it? rename it, and for a release cycle still also accept the old variant, but produce a trace if it is set? | 17:22:53 |
 Qyriad | See also: NIX_DEBUG | 17:29:31 |
| infinisil | In reply to @terru:raccoon.college
Question about environment variables which nixpkgs reads to configure itself: these all have the prefix NIXPKGS_ or NIXOS_, except NIX_ABORT_ON_WARN. I find this very confusing, as it suggests that this variable is read by nix itself, which it is not. It was introduced in #140763, apparently without consideration of this inconsistency. Is there any good reason why it should not be called NIXPKGS_ABORT_ON_WARN instead, and if not, what is the process to change it? rename it, and for a release cycle still also accept the old variant, but produce a trace if it is set? Yeah that sounds like a good plan to me. I'd make the deprecation period longer though, it doesn't cost much | 20:04:18 |
| 22 Apr 2024 |
 willbush | 
Download 20240421_21h04m39s_grim.png | 02:05:07 |
| willbush | Any idea why 3 of the by-name checks would trigger at the same time for https://github.com/NixOS/nixpkgs/pull/305879? | 02:05:21 |
| willbush | Maybe could be fixed by https://docs.github.com/en/actions/using-jobs/using-concurrency | 02:13:34 |
| willbush | Maybe?:
concurrency:
group: ${{ github.ref }}
cancel-in-progress: true
| 02:15:32 |
| willbush | It's sort of a micro-optimization though in the shadow of-borg | 02:17:34 |
| willbush | * It's sort of a micro-optimization though in the shadow ofborg | 02:17:46 |
| willbush changed their profile picture. | 07:10:21 |
| terru | it does have the (very slight) cost of "someone will have to remember to remove the extra code which implements the warning" ;)
in any case, I've opened a PR for this now: https://github.com/NixOS/nixpkgs/pull/306026 | 15:21:33 |
| infinisil | willbush: Yeah sounds like you're right on. Feel free to PR if you want! | 15:56:39 |
| infinisil | I'm in the weekly office hour: https://meet.jit.si/nixpkgs-architecture (cc Philip Taron (UTC-8), willbush, Dominic Mills) | 18:00:34 |
 Philip Taron (UTC-8) | I'm skipping today. Gotta do work for work. | 18:01:10 |
| infinisil | I'm planning to finish https://github.com/NixOS/nixpkgs-check-by-name/pull/46 today, would love to hear your thoughts on that at some point :D | 18:01:44 |
| infinisil | I'll unmark as draft when ready | 18:02:05 |
| Philip Taron (UTC-8) | I'll review when ready. Thoughts are that changelogs are good, and trying to perfect them is a personally chosen mission :-) | 18:04:19 |
| Philip Taron (UTC-8) | * I'll review when it's ready. Thoughts are that changelogs are good, and trying to perfect them is a personally chosen mission :-) | 18:04:33 |
| 23 Apr 2024 |
| willbush | Download 5flake.svg | 00:50:32 |
| willbush | I was goofing around with this tool last night https://discourse.nixos.org/t/genix7000-nix-project-logo-generator/15937/37
nix run github:cab404/genix7000#to-image -- 5flake.svg \
--num 5 \
--thick 20 \
--rotation 339 \
--angle 120 \
--clipinv true "\#5277C3" "\#7CAEDC" "\#6989D8" "\#6A93CE" "\#819DD1"
| 00:50:40 |
| willbush | Was thinking it might be a fun way to make a logo for the project if we ever wanted one. | 00:51:06 |
| willbush | Then I was thinking it sort of looks like a through ratchet. Rename project to ratchet? haha | 00:53:21 |
| willbush | I do wonder given future plans of by-name checks I wonder if that name will make less sense in the future. | 00:53:54 |
| infinisil | Neat ideas! Since it's just for Nixpkgs right now, I don't think we need much right now, but we should revisit if it turns into something more usable by third-parties :) | 02:37:39 |
 adisbladis | I have an open issue regarding Python where I think it's worth considering the overall implications for nixpkgs infrastructure.
See the bit under the heading Reducing evaluation overhead.
This is basically an instance of https://discourse.nixos.org/t/1000-instances-of-nixpkgs/17347, just inside nixpkgs.
Python isn't the only ecosystem where the packageOverrides idiom comes and bites us performance wise, but it is the most common source of such issues.
| 04:27:49 |
|  @me:indeednotjames.com left the room. | 16:48:06 |
| 24 Apr 2024 |
|  @stablejoy:matrix.org changed their profile picture. | 08:59:06 |
