For a long time `nix repl` has supported displaying documentation set on
builtins, however, it has long been convention to use Markdown comments
on Nix functions themselves for documentation. This exposes that
information to `nix repl` users in a nice and formatted way.
NixOS/rfcs#145 doc-comments are primarily what this feature is intended
to consume, however, support for lambda documentation in the repl is
experimental. We do our best effort to support the RFC here.
These changes are based on [the nix-doc library](https://github.com/lf-/nix-doc) and
are licensed under the terms described in the relevant source files.
Change-Id: Ic6fe947d39a22540705d890737e336c4720b0a22
The big ones here are `trim-trailing-whitespace` and `end-of-file-fixer`
(which makes sure that every file ends with exactly one newline
character).
Change-Id: Idca73b640883188f068f9903e013cf0d82aa1123
I didn't enable this by default for clang due to making the build time
10% worse or so. Unfortunate, but tbh devs for whom 10% of build time is
not *that* bad should probably simply enable this.
Change-Id: I8d1e5b6f3f76c649a4e2f115f534f7f97cee46e6
hacking changelog-d to support not just github but also forgejo and
gerrit is a lot more complicated than it's worth, even moreso since
the entire thing can just as well be done with ~60 lines of python.
this new script is also much cheaper to instantiate (being python),
so having it enabled in all shells is far less of a hassle.
we've also adjusted existing release notes that referenced a gerrit
cl to auto-link to the cl in question, making the diff a bit bigger
closes lix-project/lix#176
Change-Id: I8ba7dd0070aad9ba4474401731215fcf5d9d2130
in order to make the development process more transparent for everyone,
all pull requests should go through the triage process before getting
merged.
this ensures that all team members are aware of what is going on, and
that rationale for decisions is kept track of in the meeting notes for
posterity. (ideally all that should go into the commit history, but this
is a more invasive process change that needs further deliberation.)
having all team members take at least a brief but conscious look at each
change may also help with keeping our quality standards, as more
reviewers are more likely to remind each other of our shared values.
PRs that don't increase our ongoing obligations (i.e. by adding new
features) but do increase test coverage of existing features are good
things to merge for the health of the project, and thus good to
prioritize.
so far there were no even remotely measurable objectives, only a general
purpose statement.
this change is intended to focus the team's work on what I (and many
others I talked to) perceive to be the main pain point in the
development process.
Co-authored-by: solene.rapenne@tweag.io
John has been part of every meeting since the beginning.
He took on a lot of work on behalf of the team, and provided useful suggestions in discussions, advocating for stability, reasonable design decisions, and maintainable code.
He was in general highly productive within the team process, and repeatedly helped us to keep focus on our stated goals.
Specifically, early on he suggested to gather more experience with the team reviews in order derive our values for the project encode a more structured approach to guiding contributions, which is slowly bearing fruit these days.
John is already the contributor with the most code changes to date (only topped by principal author Eelco), and is well-known to be highly knowledgeable about both high-level design and low-level internals of the code base.
He has continued to offer high quality work during the team's operation, which resulted in many pull requests getting merged that further the team's goals.
It is due time for John to be come an official team member and be granted merge access that he will surely exercise with the great care he is known for.
write down the process we have been developing and following so far.
Co-Authored-By: Théophane Hufschmitt <theophane.hufschmitt@tweag.io>
Co-Authored-By: John Ericson <John.Ericson@Obsidian.Systems>
This also makes sure that we get the Docker images from the same Hydra
eval, rather than the latest build from job/nix/.../dockerImage, which
may not be the same.
