Skip to content
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

nix: update flake.lock #2

Open
wants to merge 1 commit into
base: main
Choose a base branch
from
Open

Conversation

github-actions[bot]
Copy link

Automated changes by the update-flake-lock GitHub Action.

Flake lock file updates:

• Updated input 'flake-utils':
    'github:numtide/flake-utils/ff7b65b44d01cf9ba6a71320833626af21126384' (2023-09-12)
  → 'github:numtide/flake-utils/4022d587cbbfd70fe950c1e2083a02621806a725' (2023-12-04)
• Updated input 'nixpkgs':
    'github:NixOS/nixpkgs/808c0d8c53c7ae50f82aca8e7df263225cf235bf' (2023-10-26)
  → 'github:NixOS/nixpkgs/e1fa12d4f6c6fe19ccb59cac54b5b3f25e160870' (2023-12-25)
• Updated input 'rust-overlay':
    'github:oxalica/rust-overlay/571fee291b386dd6fe0d125bc20a7c7b3ad042ac' (2023-10-28)
  → 'github:oxalica/rust-overlay/319f57cd2c34348c55970a4bf2b35afe82088681' (2023-12-30)

Running GitHub Actions on this PR

GitHub Actions will not run workflows on pull requests which are opened by a GitHub Action.

To run GitHub Actions workflows on this PR, run:

git branch -D update_flake_lock_action
git fetch origin
git checkout update_flake_lock_action
git commit --amend --no-edit
git push origin update_flake_lock_action --force

Flake lock file updates:

• Updated input 'flake-utils':
    'github:numtide/flake-utils/ff7b65b44d01cf9ba6a71320833626af21126384' (2023-09-12)
  → 'github:numtide/flake-utils/4022d587cbbfd70fe950c1e2083a02621806a725' (2023-12-04)
• Updated input 'nixpkgs':
    'github:NixOS/nixpkgs/808c0d8c53c7ae50f82aca8e7df263225cf235bf' (2023-10-26)
  → 'github:NixOS/nixpkgs/e1fa12d4f6c6fe19ccb59cac54b5b3f25e160870' (2023-12-25)
• Updated input 'rust-overlay':
    'github:oxalica/rust-overlay/571fee291b386dd6fe0d125bc20a7c7b3ad042ac' (2023-10-28)
  → 'github:oxalica/rust-overlay/319f57cd2c34348c55970a4bf2b35afe82088681' (2023-12-30)
ilyagr added a commit that referenced this pull request May 6, 2024
For example, 

```
<<<<<<< Conflict 1 of 3
+++++++ Contents of side #1
left 3.1
left 3.2
left 3.3
%%%%%%% Changes from base to side #2
-line 3
+right 3.1
>>>>>>>
```

or

```
<<<<<<< Conflict 1 of 1
%%%%%%% Changes from base to side #1
-line 3
+right 3.1
+++++++ Contents of side #2
left 3.1
left 3.2
left 3.3
>>>>>>>
```

Currently, there is no way to disable these, this is TODO for a future
PR. Other TODOs for future PRs: make these labels configurable. After
that, we could support a `diff3/git`-like conflict format as well, in
principle.

Counting conflicts helps with knowing whether you fixed all the
conflicts while you are in the editor.

While labeling "side #1", etc, does not tell you the commit id or
description as requested in martinvonz#1176, I still think it's an improvement.
Most importantly, I hope this will make `jj`'s conflict format less
scary-looking for new users.

I've used this for a bit, and I like it. Without the labels, I would see
that the two conflicts have a different order of conflict markers, but I
wouldn't be able to remember what that means. For longer diffs, it can
be tricky for me to quickly tell that it's a diff as opposed to one of
the sides. This also creates some hope of being able to navigate a
conflict with more than 2 sides.

Another not-so-secret goal for this is explained in
martinvonz#3109 (comment). The
idea is a little weird, but I *think* it could be helpful, and I'd like
to experiment with it.
ilyagr added a commit that referenced this pull request May 6, 2024
For example, 

```
<<<<<<< Conflict 1 of 3
+++++++ Contents of side #1
left 3.1
left 3.2
left 3.3
%%%%%%% Changes from base to side #2
-line 3
+right 3.1
>>>>>>>
```

or

```
<<<<<<< Conflict 1 of 1
%%%%%%% Changes from base to side #1
-line 3
+right 3.1
+++++++ Contents of side #2
left 3.1
left 3.2
left 3.3
>>>>>>>
```

Currently, there is no way to disable these, this is TODO for a future
PR. Other TODOs for future PRs: make these labels configurable. After
that, we could support a `diff3/git`-like conflict format as well, in
principle.

Counting conflicts helps with knowing whether you fixed all the
conflicts while you are in the editor.

While labeling "side #1", etc, does not tell you the commit id or
description as requested in martinvonz#1176, I still think it's an improvement.
Most importantly, I hope this will make `jj`'s conflict format less
scary-looking for new users.

I've used this for a bit, and I like it. Without the labels, I would see
that the two conflicts have a different order of conflict markers, but I
wouldn't be able to remember what that means. For longer diffs, it can
be tricky for me to quickly tell that it's a diff as opposed to one of
the sides. This also creates some hope of being able to navigate a
conflict with more than 2 sides.

Another not-so-secret goal for this is explained in
martinvonz#3109 (comment). The
idea is a little weird, but I *think* it could be helpful, and I'd like
to experiment with it.
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

0 participants