Conversation
ofborg
bot
added
11.by: package-maintainer
isabelroses
left a comment
isabelroses
left a comment
There was a problem hiding this comment.
You should probaly make the move to pkgs/by-name as a separate commit
I've always done like that. There is some motivation for doing so? |
Shouldn't really matter imo. Just something that a few others have pointed out to me. |
|
This pull request has been mentioned on NixOS Discourse. There might be relevant details there: |
isabelroses
added
the
12.approvals: 1
|
This pull request has been mentioned on NixOS Discourse. There might be relevant details there: |
luftmensch-luftmensch
force-pushed
the
tmsu_update
branch
from
e7661e3 to
f23f296
Compare
wegank
removed
the
12.approvals: 1
The reason is that the way it is currently done, git won't recognize the rename and will handle package.nix as a new file. Following, history for that isn't connected to the history of the old file anymore. You can check this here: https://github.com/NixOS/nixpkgs/commits/f23f296e040706920d05aa1b7eb342014feb2cd7/pkgs/by-name/tm/tmsu/package.nix If the rename is recognized, github will show the file rename as part of the history and will link to the history of the file before the rename. |
Should I ditch the current worktree and make two different commits in order to handle this flow? EDIT: Thanks @Mic92! |
Mic92
force-pushed
the
tmsu_update
branch
2 times, most recently
from
a8df5a0 to
dfd299c
Compare
|
@Mic92 there is a typo in the commit message: s/moe/move/ |
7 participants
Description of changes
Migrating to
buildGoModulesobuildGoPackagecan be deprecated as cited in #318069Updated also location of the package to reflect the newest standard
Things done
nix.conf? (See Nix manual)sandbox = relaxedsandbox = truenix-shell -p nixpkgs-review --run "nixpkgs-review rev HEAD". Note: all changes have to be committed, also see nixpkgs-review usage./result/bin/)Add a 👍 reaction to pull requests you find important.