| 22 Nov 2025 |
 helle (just a stray cat girl) | also I think we need to rebuild all the Lix changelogs with anchors, I uh, may be in for some doing I guess, because having anchors is useful | 20:19:37 |
| helle (just a stray cat girl) | semi-related screams at the status of the Built-in Functions documentation uhhhh, we need to get some more intelligent arg handling and just combing through and writing all of it to the same standard and potentially some index gen | 21:03:19 |
| helle (just a stray cat girl) | given that I can't do much code rn, I may do some doc patches the coming week | 21:03:37 |
| helle (just a stray cat girl) | the doc/C++ generator for that also needs some work, so yeah.... | 21:05:18 |
| 23 Nov 2025 |
 piegames | In reply to @helle:tacobelllabs.net
has anyone asked about https://docs.lix.systems/manual/lix/stable/contributing/deprecated-features.html#dp-feature-nul-bytes vs https://git.lix.systems/lix-project/lix/src/commit/7e193f962e35217268e81164eef9f8be7059a84e/doc/manual/rl-next/pascal-strings.md because we should figure out how to explain that one in documentation or uh, fix the situation as we now explicitly allow them The nul-bytes deprecated feature is about nul bytes in the parser, which as of today still can cause truncation (in the parser, for non-indented strings), whereas the undefined behavior gotcha in terms of eval semantics is now indeed fixed | 07:32:11 |
| piegames | I hope that makes sense | 07:32:16 |
| helle (just a stray cat girl) | In reply to @piegames:flausch.social
The nul-bytes deprecated feature is about nul bytes in the parser, which as of today still can cause truncation (in the parser, for non-indented strings), whereas the undefined behavior gotcha in terms of eval semantics is now indeed fixed I mean I read the code and tests to figure it out (after filing the bug, should ammend it), it made total sense, but if you are not diving that deep, the docs need to be specific enough to explain what is going on there as initially it looks like a conflict | 07:40:12 |
| piegames | If you can tackle fixing that that would be appreciated | 09:30:50 |
| helle (just a stray cat girl) | okay, will tag you on the patch as I need to make sure to word it right | 09:35:37 |
| 24 Nov 2025 |
|  Aijokey joined the room. | 10:19:50 |
| piegames | Redacted or Malformed Event | 12:40:40 |
| piegames | Very small nit: Can we change the text "Not run" in the Gerrit Checks tab to "Queued"? Because I consistently read "Not run" as "Skipped" and get really confused | 12:56:10 |
| piegames | Or maybe "Not run yet" | 12:56:16 |
 Rutile (Commentator2.0) feel free to ping | and if possible show them at the top too as queued instead of not showing them, because at first glance the only thing one sees is a bunch of green checkmarks, with no indication of queued tests, and one is confused why there's no +1 Verified (yet) | 13:08:25 |
| helle (just a stray cat girl) | yeah, so that is a plugin I have half done, someone needs to sit me down and make me actually finish a thing at the moment | 13:08:57 |
| helle (just a stray cat girl) | I can dig up the earlier conversation at some point and should make it an issue or idk move it to zulip, anyway | 13:09:31 |
| Rutile (Commentator2.0) feel free to ping | zulip and/or issue sounds sensible | 13:10:22 |
| piegames | Hm, do we want a Zulip channel for Gerrit? | 15:04:18 |
 raitobezarius | Infra maybe | 15:19:44 |
| piegames | Uhm raitobezarius | 22:47:25 |
| piegames | I appreciate you submitting these changes but they were not fully ready yet | 22:47:37 |
| raitobezarius | Yes? | 22:47:40 |
| piegames | lacking release notes for example | 22:47:44 |
| piegames | and more tests | 22:47:50 |
| piegames | (my bad for not marking them as draft) | 22:48:02 |
| raitobezarius | Apologies for that, I was in a "submit routine" because too many changes are sent | 22:48:12 |
| piegames | oh and also they were awaiting a flaker run :D | 22:48:24 |
| raitobezarius | Next time, I won't touch your changes unless you give me an explicit request | 22:49:13 |
| piegames | if not for the Flaker run I'd go with a fixup commit, but given that I currently don't even know if Nixpkgs still evaluates with them (probably?) I think a revert might be preferable | 22:49:36 |
| raitobezarius | Do you think it's that time sensitive? | 22:50:02 |
