| 17 Aug 2023 |
 cole-h | In reply to @infinisil:matrix.org
cole-h: Do you know where the complexity comes from? Is it just overengineered or are there actually tricky problems justifying it? Maybe a little of column A and a little of column B? The fact it's hard to setup for local testing (something I want to hack on at the hack day at NixCon this year) is one part, because it means the only way to truly know if something works is by deploying to prod. | 22:38:01 |
 raitobezarius | In reply to @infinisil:matrix.org
Though tbh I never liked how Nixpkgs CI isn't declared in Nixpkgs itself, that's a good reason to not do that (nor any other separate repository) Isn't this orthogonal to putting this stuff in Ofborg? | 22:38:04 |
| raitobezarius | You can have a framework to render GHA in nixpkgs, use it for nixpkgs CI | 22:38:19 |
| raitobezarius | (that'd be neat) | 22:38:23 |
| raitobezarius | And ofborg would be one of the component of that CI | 22:38:35 |
| raitobezarius | And the rfc140 checker maybe another in option 5 | 22:38:46 |
 @infinisil:matrix.org | Not sure what you mean | 22:38:49 |
| cole-h | In reply to @raitobezarius:matrix.org
Isn't this orthogonal to putting this stuff in Ofborg? (Fwiw, I read that as "maybe it would be better to keep the program in Nixpkgs", not something else) | 22:39:10 |
| @infinisil:matrix.org | I don't think you can render a GHA config? | 22:39:14 |
| raitobezarius | GHA workflow is a YAML file | 22:39:35 |
| cole-h | If only GHA was like buildkite... | 22:40:15 |
| @infinisil:matrix.org | Ah I think Isee | 22:40:20 |
| raitobezarius | I meant to render GHA workflows via Nix expressions | 22:40:31 |
