Reviewed channel/revision #93

Activity

1. Mic92 commented on Oct 29, 2018

   

   Mic92

   on Oct 29, 2018

   MemberAuthor

   More actions

   From irc:

   16:26:50 I'd vote for using the same tooling as the one being developed for NixOS/rfcs#34 , as it's being designed exactly for this, but maybe it's too “long-term” and a bot to mark commits as “reviewed” would do it too?
   16:27:15 (though if we start reviewing NUR… why not integrate with nixpkgs straight away? unless the issue is one with nixpkgs' license?)
   16:30:02 <@Mic92> It would be not the same level of review we do for nixpkgs.
   16:30:33 <@Mic92> Also we want to allow more experiements in NUR.
   16:31:04 <@Mic92> Like opionated patches, large package sets and old version of packages.
   16:31:41 hmm yeah ok :)
   16:32:32 <@Mic92> The reviewed channel would be also an alternative way of fetching NUR. The default channel would be still unreviewed and non-blocking.
   16:36:10 <@Mic92> ekleog: if this tool gets ever implemented, I will consider using it. Otherwise I will extend our current travis with a custom job, which is not hard to do.
   16:36:57 <@Mic92> This needs to be done anyway so the tooling developed in this rfc would be orthogonal

   👍React with 👍1Reacted by Jonas Chevalier