- Video conference
- GitHub project board
- Team details
- Past meeting notes
- Attendees: @infinisil @proofconstruction @roberth @zmitchell @alejandrosame @mightyiam @tomberek
- Notes by: @infinisil @proofconstruction
Notes
Updates:
-
@proofconstruction: Add styles for diffs by yukiisbored · Pull Request #668 · NixOS/nix.dev · GitHub by @yuki_is_bored is ready
- Merged!
-
@zmitchell:
- Had the learning journey WG, reviewed two PR’s, see learning journey meeting notes for details
-
@alejandrosame:
- Working on nixpkgs manual: Python chapter structural problems · Issue #246234 · NixOS/nixpkgs · GitHub
- Q: Separate issues on nix.dev? A: Not necessary
- TODO: Add yourself to
maintainer-list.nixin Nixpkgs, so we can add you to the documentation team
-
@asymmetric:
- Working on https://github.com/NixOS/rfcs/pull/145
-
[RFC 0046] Platform Support Tiers by 7c6f434c · Pull Request #46 · NixOS/rfcs · GitHub
- Apparently nobody volunteers as a maintainer for the platform, but needed for the RFC
- What to do?
- @infinisil: RFC’s being accepted is really just a green-light for the implementation, it’s not required to be implemented (but would be nice)
- Imo this isn’t that important,
- Should docs reflect the status quo of before the RFC then?
- doc: Document Platform Support Tiers by asymmetric · Pull Request #245368 · NixOS/nixpkgs · GitHub
- @infinisil: Docs should reflect the current state, might require some work to figure out what it is
- @asymmetric: Got some help on a PR, would be good to get it in, adjustments can be made
-
@zmitchell: What is the problem with that docs being out-of-date?
- @asymmetric: People could assume better support than reality
- @proofconstruction: Reminds me of the Raspberry Pi support discussions recently, nobody in charge of keeping it working
- @infinisil: Can do the same, add warnings
-
@infinisil: How about only including things we can know for sure:
- Which platforms most users use
- Which platforms are built by Hydra, channels
- Link to the RFC, to Matrix channels on platforms, previous issues
- Also maybe link to Nix 🖤 macOS Monthly - #20 by toonn
-
@mightyiam: Working on nix repl session doc tester
- Being worked on in https://github.com/mightyiam/nix.dev/tree/mob/doctest/doctester
-
@proofconstruction:
- In the last meeting we took a look at @ryantm’s mmdoc, Nixpkgs rendered looks like this: Preface | nixpkgs
- @pennae raised some concerns
- Don’t have installing NixOS instructions for x86_64-linux on nix.dev, but other less used architectures exist
- @zmitchell: Imo should keep being in the manual, the other architectures are more tricky
- @zmitchell: Generally NixOS is not an often-requested topic, more often Flakes
- @proofconstruction: Relates to What's the page for setting up a NixOS configuration.nix file? Flakes or no? Home manager? · Issue #665 · NixOS/nix.dev · GitHub
- @proofconstruction: Let’s move the Raspberry pi and co. pages and put them somewhere else
- Also take a look at the Monday meetings: 2023-07-31 Documentation team meeting notes #68
- Rediscuss decision to not document Flakes?
- Idea: Have a page that describes the Flake schema, use it with a NixOS configuration, basic stuff
- See What's the page for setting up a NixOS configuration.nix file? Flakes or no? Home manager? · Issue #665 · NixOS/nix.dev · GitHub
- This divides the community
- We should document what exists, not what we would like to exist
- @alejandrosame: Using flakes, not sure how flakes could be covered well, becomes unmanageable for beginners quickly, flakes has a big surface area
- @infinisil: Flakes needs to be stabilized, direct people and companies towards funding that
- @proofconstruction: Everybody online is heavily advertising flakes
- @zmitchell: Reduce harm. People will use Flakes, even if it’s not great for them. Make minimal effort to say that Flakes exist, show some basics, but not focus on it. Many people might be happy to document Flakes since it’s so popular.
- @asymmetric: We’ve had this conversation multiple times already, should have an internal document writing down arguments. We can point people to existing third-party resources. We aren’t going to fix it, it’s not our responsibility to fix Flakes.
- @asymmetric: Let’s at least document basic points and not discuss it much more
- @zmitchell: We should discuss it because it is a problem, people always ask for Flakes or NixOS configs with them. Purpose of docs is to help people.
- @zmitchell: Flakes can also be used as a gateway/bait into non-Flakes-specific content
- @infinisil: How much impact do we have by documenting flakes ourselves? Maybe just link to third-parties
- @proofconstruction: Have an entry-point in the official docs is useful, link to other resources
- @asymmetric: There’s already the wiki for docs we aren’t responsible for.
- @proofconstruction: Also a good way to inform people about how to help with the stabilization effort
- @alejandrosame: Could add information about escaping from flakes - “this feature of flakes isn’t working for me, but I still want the feature/capability”. niv, etc
- @asymmetric: niv is 3rd party and we don’t want to document 3rd party tools
- @asymmetric: if this team documents flakes, we also contribute to ossifying the feature and preventing its change, etc.
- @asymmetric, @proofconstruction broadly in agreement that the flakes issue represents a governance issue more generally
- @infinisil: could write down proposals and bring them to nixcon