-
-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 16
New issue
Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.
By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.
Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account
Future of this repository after RFC 145 #90
Comments
Which one would be the other one? |
Lets discuss an envisioned migration path: First nixdoc currently plays an important role in rendering the nixpkgs manual. From my view nixdoc is a static analysis tool, that also pre-renders parts of the nixpkgs manual. Unfortunately making predictions how the nixpkgs manual is rendered. Those predicitions make it very hard to change the manual rendering, as both now making predictions on each other and rendering depends on those. I think in the mid term nixdoc should support the new format in parallel, and also have a JSON output, that allows other projects (than the nixpkgs manual) to use it. Support for the old format should then be removed entirely once nixpkgs has been migrated. Example PR here For the nixpkgs migration to happen, we have to support both formats for a while, as we cannot (or should not) change everything at once. How it could work in details:
For now, we don't have any other tool doing the same thing right? And support in native nix is still WIP or not even started yet. |
I think the long term goal could be to either archive this repo, or make it a small cargo package, that downstream users can use with rnix-parser. (only for static retrieving of doc-comments from a given ast or sth.) |
Just saw you open #91 👏 |
Now addressed with #91 :) |
RFC 145 is almost accepted. This repository currently implements the doc comment parsing in Nixpkgs. What should happen to this repository after the RFC is accepted?
Pinging the RFC author and shepherds, did you have anything in mind?
@hsjobeki @DavHau @sternenseemann @asymmetric
Note that @asymmetric agreed to let me take over maintenance of this repository, but I'd also be on-board to either help change it as necessary for the RFC, or to help out maintenance of a new repository.
I mainly don't want to end up with two repositories doing almost the same thing, both needing maintenance :)
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: