| 27 Sep 2023 |
 infinisil | Yeah, well I'm glad I was able to explain it, it's useful specific to nixpkgs-check-by-name, but a CI retrigger is a decent fix the other general problem :) | 19:49:34 |
| infinisil | * Yeah, well I'm glad I was able to explain it, it's useful specific to nixpkgs-check-by-name, but a CI retrigger is a decent fix for the other general problem :) | 19:49:44 |
| infinisil | Oh and I guess this could also be useful if it's too expensive to re-trigger the CI check for all affected PR's | 19:52:08 |
| infinisil | (not the case for nixpkgs-check-by-name) | 19:52:22 |
| infinisil | Kind of nice how this approach allows a gradual rollout of a new CI check though. And you can kind of control the amount of the rollout based on how quickly you fix the base branch when the new check starts failing on it. | 19:58:30 |
| infinisil | * Kind of nice how this approach allows a gradual rollout of a new CI check without using any extra resources though. And you can kind of control the amount of the rollout based on how quickly you fix the base branch when the new check starts failing on it. | 19:58:46 |
| infinisil | Nice, the RFC 140 tool prevented the double addition of a package: https://github.com/NixOS/nixpkgs/pull/257565 | 21:12:28 |
| 28 Sep 2023 |
| infinisil | This is fairly small, kind of neat and self-contained, reviews appreciated: https://github.com/NixOS/nixpkgs/pull/257735 | 00:06:25 |
| 2 Oct 2023 |
|  @atra1n:matrix.org joined the room. | 01:42:33 |
| infinisil | Here's the current plan for the RFC 140 migration, I'd like to talk about that in tomorrows NAT meeting and optionally schedule a longer call if it needs to be discussed further: https://github.com/NixOS/nixpkgs/issues/258650 (cc Robert Hensing (roberth) John Ericson tomberek growpotkin ( Alex Ameen ) DavHau phaer) | 20:30:22 |
