| 29 Aug 2021 |
 manveru | i really wish the crystal formatter wouldn't insist on changing #! to # ! after the first line... | 08:40:28 |
 abathur | oof | 14:40:39 |
| 31 Aug 2021 |
 Robert Hensing (roberth) | I keep getting this wrong nix flake lock update --update-input | 12:16:46 |
| Robert Hensing (roberth) | is it just me or should this be a proper noun-verb command of its own? | 12:17:19 |
 Las | Robert Hensing (roberth): I often incorrectly use nix flake update ... | 12:22:38 |
| Las | It doesn't make much sense honestly | 12:22:42 |
| Robert Hensing (roberth) | flake lock feels more noun-noun than noun-verb, although it's technically both | 12:23:47 |
| Robert Hensing (roberth) | nix flake update <inputName> would make most sense to me | 12:24:10 |
| Robert Hensing (roberth) | could be multiple input names as well | 12:24:37 |
| Las | The odd thing is you can put --update-input on anything | 12:25:10 |
| Robert Hensing (roberth) | heh, ok | 12:25:32 |
| Robert Hensing (roberth) | makes sense for --override-input, but update should be a separate action | 12:26:04 |
| Robert Hensing (roberth) | also update --override-input is meaningless or misleading | 12:28:17 |
| Robert Hensing (roberth) | nix flake update should be nix registry update? I think? | 12:29:59 |
| Robert Hensing (roberth) | anyway, this is probably going nowhere and I need to get work done, ttyl | 12:30:20 |
| 1 Sep 2021 |
 niksnut | In reply to @roberthensing:matrix.org
nix flake update should be nix registry update? I think? No, nix flake update updates the flake lock file, it doesn't have anything to do with the registry. | 16:37:46 |
| Robert Hensing (roberth) | then I don't know what should have been modified when I used it. Nothing changed. | 16:38:46 |
| niksnut | Maybe there was nothing to update? | 16:39:35 |
| Robert Hensing (roberth) | or maybe it cached the thing I wanted to update | 16:40:13 |
| niksnut | it implies --tarball-ttl 0 so it shouldn't cache anything | 16:42:02 |
| Robert Hensing (roberth) | hmm. That applies to git caching as well right? | 16:42:28 |
| Robert Hensing (roberth) | it was github anyway, so that's a tarball | 16:42:43 |
| niksnut | yes | 16:43:18 |
| Robert Hensing (roberth) | In reply to @roberthensing:matrix.org
nix flake update <inputName> would make most sense to me can it be changed to this? | 16:44:10 |
| Robert Hensing (roberth) | so it's all by default, or the closure of specified inputs | 16:44:49 |
| Robert Hensing (roberth) | you know what, this is probably better to discuss on github, so the discussion is more discoverable | 16:50:54 |
| niksnut | In reply to @roberthensing:matrix.org
can it be changed to this? No because nix flake update takes an optional flakeref (like nix flake update /path) so this would be ambiguous. | 19:48:36 |
| Robert Hensing (roberth) | right. I've never wanted to do that. Most package managers just operate on the working directory | 20:43:41 |
| Las | I never realized that the flake URI parameter to nix flake update was the flake whose inputs you wanted to update, and not the URI of the input you wanted to update... | 20:47:04 |
| Las | This is honestly quite counterintuitive | 20:47:26 |
