| 6 Nov 2023 |
 infinisil | Hmm I think reference docs can also use overviews of its parts, it doesn't really fit into tutorials, guides or explanation | 14:39:47 |
 fricklerhandwerk | Overviews are important, and should be right there with the reference docs. Reference will change, and while the prose overview may not catch up immediately, it's way easier to keep it in sync when it's in-tree. | 14:56:28 |
 proofconstruction | In case I just mass review-requested everyone on nix.dev, I apologize. I was trying to fix an erroneous push. Who are the administrators of the repo? We should enable branch protection on master to require a PR with approval before merging | 16:42:33 |
 @delroth:delroth.net | fun artifact of building nix.dev with flakes: the footer says "Copyright 2016-1980" | 16:46:24 |
| @delroth:delroth.net | * fun artifact of building nix.dev with nix: the footer says "Copyright 2016-1980" | 16:46:31 |
 nbp | Wait, this is not 1970? | 16:52:28 |
 alejandrosame | In reply to @infinisil:matrix.org
Hmm I think reference docs can also use overviews of its parts, it doesn't really fit into tutorials, guides or explanation The way I see it is like dictionaries: you can add extra sections (intros, overviews, historical explanations, etc) but the indexing of the entries is alphabetical to ease its navigation. | 17:02:30 |
| alejandrosame | I'm with you that being too terse is in general problematic for documentation. | 17:04:09 |
| @delroth:delroth.net | In reply to @nbp:mozilla.org
Wait, this is not 1970? I think 1980 is the default SOURCE_DATE_EPOCH | 17:51:44 |
| nbp | isn't that the 1st of 1970? To which we added a few seconds because of gnumake? | 18:02:01 |
 Linux Hackerman | ZIP can only represent dates starting from 1980, my guess is that that's why it would be 1980 and not 1970 | 18:04:44 |
| @delroth:delroth.net | # Set a fallback default value for SOURCE_DATE_EPOCH, used by some build tools
# to provide a deterministic substitute for the "current" time. Note that
# 315532800 = 1980-01-01 12:00:00. We use this date because python's wheel
# implementation uses zip archive and zip does not support dates going back to
# 1970.
export SOURCE_DATE_EPOCH
: "${SOURCE_DATE_EPOCH:=315532800}"
| 18:28:44 |
| infinisil | I've drafted a small RFC to use nix.dev as the canonical name (but there's also alternatives), would appreciate some quick feedback: https://github.com/nix-rfc-canonical-domain/rfcs/blob/canonical-domain/rfcs/1000-canonical-domain.md | 20:36:48 |
| infinisil | * I've drafted a small RFC to use nix.dev as the canonical domain name (but there's also alternatives), would appreciate some quick feedback: https://github.com/nix-rfc-canonical-domain/rfcs/blob/canonical-domain/rfcs/1000-canonical-domain.md | 20:37:52 |
| fricklerhandwerk | In reply to @infinisil:matrix.org
I've drafted a small RFC to use nix.dev as the canonical domain name (but there's also alternatives), would appreciate some quick feedback: https://github.com/nix-rfc-canonical-domain/rfcs/blob/canonical-domain/rfcs/1000-canonical-domain.md There should be very few things that deserve an RFC. This is one of them. | 20:41:34 |
| @delroth:delroth.net | this feels like it should have a mention of the nixos dot com problem :-) | 20:44:40 |
| @delroth:delroth.net | * this RFC feels like it should have a mention of the nixos dot com problem :-) | 20:44:52 |
| fricklerhandwerk | In reply to @delroth:delroth.net
this RFC feels like it should have a mention of the nixos dot com problem :-) Right. And if it comes to a conclusion we may want to task the foundation to exercise their trademark rights on that basis. | 20:52:55 |
| infinisil | Btw I also asked in the governance room, where there's some more discussion already: https://matrix.to/#/!VyoUhyWvlhSpFWWxHL:matrix.org/$WUV3OUgwKv_EQkOVQTSOE6WCjbck9oof4nEmzLSy1p8?via=nixos.org&via=matrix.org&via=matrix.dapp.org.uk | 20:55:59 |
| 7 Nov 2023 |
|  chreekat left the room. | 06:58:35 |
 asymmetric | In reply to @infinisil:matrix.org
I've drafted a small RFC to use nix.dev as the canonical domain name (but there's also alternatives), would appreciate some quick feedback: https://github.com/nix-rfc-canonical-domain/rfcs/blob/canonical-domain/rfcs/1000-canonical-domain.md in future work you could list that the implementation of the currently two websites could be unified. or maybe not. but it's a question that i had. you could also declare it as explicitly out of scope. | 10:05:35 |
| infinisil | In reply to @asymmetric:matrix.dapp.org.uk
in future work you could list that the implementation of the currently two websites could be unified. or maybe not. but it's a question that i had. you could also declare it as explicitly out of scope. Sounds good, can you PR that? :D | 10:52:14 |
| asymmetric | In reply to @infinisil:matrix.org
Sounds good, can you PR that? :D as future work or as out of scope? | 10:54:21 |
| infinisil | In reply to @asymmetric:matrix.dapp.org.uk
as future work or as out of scope? I don't think there's an out of scope section. Future work sounds good | 10:56:06 |
| 8 Nov 2023 |
| fricklerhandwerk | https://discourse.nixos.org/t/a-portable-nix-shell-shebang/35148/2
What do you think? If we want this, anyone interested in seeing it through? | 00:26:48 |
| fricklerhandwerk | * https://discourse.nixos.org/t/a-portable-nix-shell-shebang/35148/2
What do you think? 👍👎? If we want this, anyone interested in seeing it through? | 00:27:31 |
| infinisil | It's a bit non-standard, but it seems fine | 02:27:59 |
| fricklerhandwerk | In reply to @infinisil:matrix.org
It's a bit non-standard, but it seems fine We could iterate on it | 07:38:23 |
| 9 Nov 2023 |
 raboof | do we have any doc writing guidelines such as "try to avoid words like 'simply'"? | 09:10:41 |
| fricklerhandwerk | In reply to @raboof:matrix.org
do we have any doc writing guidelines such as "try to avoid words like 'simply'"? Whe have a style guide for nix.dev https://nix.dev/contributing/documentation/style-guide
but no specific note on “simply”. | 09:33:34 |
