| 5 Feb 2024 |
 infinisil | In reply to @philiptaron:matrix.org
✅ after your updates. 🚀 | 19:47:16 |
 Philip Taron (UTC-8) | You still have to pin the new version, right? | 19:47:58 |
| infinisil | Philip Taron (UTC-8): Yup | 19:50:25 |
| infinisil | Gotta wait for Hydra now | 19:50:30 |
| infinisil | Should really move that codebase to a separate repo, add some versioning on top and then rely on automatic bot updates to pin it in Nixpkgs | 19:51:02 |
| Philip Taron (UTC-8) | I think that'd be a good idea. | 19:51:38 |
| Philip Taron (UTC-8) | nixos/nixpkgs-ratchet? | 19:51:50 |
| infinisil | Not exclusive to the ratchet checks, so probably something else | 19:52:23 |
| infinisil | And also it's well suited to handle CI for things outside pkgs/by-name too (like ensuring things evaluate) | 19:52:44 |
| infinisil | Could be integrated into ofborg perhaps, though it's not quite the same | 19:53:29 |
| Philip Taron (UTC-8) | Yeah, true. I like "ratchet" because most of the checks there aren't binary pass/fail, but are incremental. But the name could be as general as "linter". | 19:53:52 |
| infinisil | Most checks are fairly binary actually! | 19:54:14 |
| infinisil | See https://github.com/NixOS/nixpkgs/tree/master/pkgs/test/nixpkgs-check-by-name#validity-checks | 19:54:45 |
| infinisil | I guess people are most likely to run into the ratchet checks though :) | 19:55:29 |
| Philip Taron (UTC-8) | Yeah, agree. | 19:55:56 |
| Philip Taron (UTC-8) | Maybe "nixpkgs-vet" because it "vets" nixpkgs architecture? | 19:56:13 |
| infinisil | Oh I like that | 19:56:37 |
| infinisil | Opened https://github.com/NixOS/nixpkgs/issues/286559 | 20:11:51 |
| infinisil | Won't prioritise this right now, but at least it's tracked this way | 20:12:10 |
| Philip Taron (UTC-8) | Do you have the access rights to create a nixos repository? Or is just these folks? | 20:37:15 |
| infinisil | Philip Taron (UTC-8): Not sure who has that, but I definitely don't :) | 20:49:43 |
