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
sublime-merge: init at 1107 #58994
sublime-merge: init at 1107 #58994
Conversation
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Looks good, left a few comments.
Also you should add yourself to the maintainers list in a separate commit like
maintainers: add zookatron
and before the package init
Hi @tadeokondrak @worldofpeace ! I've applied all the requested changes in the recent updates to my branch. Let me know if there's anything else that can be improved! |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Everything builds and executes fine.
It might make sense to change the |
Possibly, I don't have enough experience to comment on how nixos commonly does that, but it seems to be that there's enough differences between the sublime3 derivation and the sublime-merge derivation to not really make it worth it. They definitely share a few important bits of logic like the |
@jtojnar Are there any blockers to having this merged? Would you like me to work on creating the shared |
Factoring out Sublime packages into a common expression can wait to future pull requests. However, I would like to see all the non-Merge-specific deviations from the Text expression to be applied there as well, in order to make the future unification easier. Basically, we want a minimal |
@jtojnar I've added a commit that updates the sublime3 and sublime-merge common.nix files to better reflect their shared structure. If you run |
In the future it's desired to unify Sublime packages expressions. So them having a shared structure will make this more achievable.
b321e40
to
148119b
Compare
Sorry that I didn't merge that for you sooner @zookatron Thank you for your contribution and co-operation 💖 |
No problem, thanks @worldofpeace! |
Motivation for this change
Things done
sandbox
innix.conf
on non-NixOS)nix-shell -p nix-review --run "nix-review wip"
./result/bin/
)nix path-info -S
before and after)