[RFC 0166] Nix formatting, take two #166
Conversation
Create 0101-nix-formatting.md WIP Go through a large part and agree on it Co-Authored-By: @piegamesde Update 0101-nix-formatting.md Rework a lot of things Update 0101-nix-formatting.md Move around some sections Reword the detailed section Minor updates Slight header changes again Updates Update 0101-nix-formatting.md Update after today's meeting Update 0101-nix-formatting.md Further updates in the meeting Update 0101-nix-formatting.md After todays meeting Update after meeting Rename to probably the right number Only use anchor links Improvements and additions - The sub-expression rule is now reworded and its own section with examples and rationale - Line length limit is now specified as we agreed-upon in the meeting - The operator section is rewritten to align more with the consensus Redo and explain operator special case Also remove the special case for non-chainable operators, barely any benefit in Nixpkgs
| || | ||
| some function call | ||
| && cond3; | ||
| ``` |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Absolutely stellar work! ❤️❤️❤️ Thanks so much for pulling through. I fully subscribe to the motivation and the full extent of the proposal. Once implemented, it will surely eliminate a significant source of friction for contributors and maintainers.
Great piece of writing, and a beautifully painted bike shed.
|
PSA: If you want to correct an obvious typo of an RFC, please just make a PR against the RFCs branch, this way we can limit the discussions in the PR to just the important bits ❤️ |
|
This pull request has been mentioned on NixOS Discourse. There might be relevant details there: https://discourse.nixos.org/t/enforcing-nix-formatting-in-nixpkgs/49506/1 |
|
This pull request has been mentioned on NixOS Discourse. There might be relevant details there: https://discourse.nixos.org/t/enforcing-nix-formatting-in-nixpkgs/49506/3 |
|
This pull request has been mentioned on NixOS Discourse. There might be relevant details there: https://discourse.nixos.org/t/satisfaction-survey-from-the-new-rfc-166-formatting/49758/25 |
|
This pull request has been mentioned on NixOS Discourse. There might be relevant details there: https://discourse.nixos.org/t/satisfaction-survey-from-the-new-rfc-166-formatting/49758/37 |
- It won't complain if there is no nix on your machine (but then why would you touch nix files?) - It'll run only for changed files The code style is changed to match with RFC-166[^1] [^1]: NixOS/rfcs#166
This is the long-awaited rework of RFC 101, to establish an official and standard Nix formatting and formatter. In short:
Check it out
The initial standard Nix format is mostly implemented in this nixfmt PR.
There may be bugs, and it may not yet correspond entirely to this RFC, but it's fairly close.
It is packaged in Nixpkgs as
nixfmt-rfc-style.To see Nixpkgs formatted using it: https://github.com/piegamesde/nixpkgs/tree/nixfmt-2
Context
This RFC is the successor to RFC 101, which originally proposed the idea of a standard formatter. The RFC started out slow, mainly trying to pick an existing formatter, but it didn't really get off the ground. Only in January 2023 when @infinisil scheduled bi-weekly calls with the shepherd team, continuous progress was made:
With almost a year of discussions, a lot of work went into this and the RFC changed completely. It would be disingenuous to continue it as the original RFC, which is why we're opening it as a new one. All 4 original shepherds are pretty happy with this RFC as is, but we're looking forward to receiving feedback. Since original shepherds @piegamesde and @infinisil are now authors of the new RFC, we're also looking to find 1-2 new shepherds to fill the gap.
The original shepherd team will continue meeting bi-weekly on Tuesday 20:00 CET here, and is reachable on Matrix.
Signed by the original shepherd team,