<samueldr>
I don't think there's one single person about the contents of the docs, I would blame the section
<aanderse>
or maybe another module should be used as an example
<aanderse>
undetermined
<aanderse>
i have a sneaking suspicion if i did a git blame it would go back ~5+ years :p
<samueldr>
that sounds likely
<samueldr>
or a pass at reformatting the docs about a year ago
<aanderse>
yeah
<samueldr>
though yeah, good spotting of that part of the docs being used as an example...
<aanderse>
the httpd module is pretty much abandonware so it probably isn't the best example to be using
<aanderse>
and the changes i plan to make probably make the module less than the best example for what that section is demonstrating
<samueldr>
at the same time, I feel the demonstrations in that section are weird, like "you can use nix in ways nix was written to be used"
<samueldr>
though I can appreciate the fact that it might not be obvious to a new user, which makes the section not useless
<aanderse>
i want to make the httpd module better which is already a huge task. i don't want to rewrite the manual. rewriting a part of the manual becomes a prerequisite to what i want to do... :\
<samueldr>
this feels like something that we could rewrite using the users.users options
<aanderse>
heyo! i like that idea!
<samueldr>
options map close enough that I think it should be trivial to make all examples map
<samueldr>
a bit more contrived, but at the same time, aren't those examples contrived?
<aanderse>
those examples really highlight how horrible the httpd module is, in comparison to nginx
<infinisil>
Currently the PR contains 17 commits, many of which are fixups. arcnmx would like to preserve history, but I'd like to have each commit be a logical unit on its own
<infinisil>
I hate that something as simple as this holds up the PR, but I really don't like merging something without a clean history
<infinisil>
Opinions?
<arcnmx>
part of it is more that I don’t feel comfortable erasing someone else’s history, but I already made a mess of mine at the first prompt to squash everything
<infinisil>
I wouldn't worry about another person's history, git is usually pretty good at keeping authors
<arcnmx>
use the github squash and merge button maybe..! ><
<infinisil>
And if not you can use the co-authored-by thing to indicate two authors (which will be shown nicely in github too)
<infinisil>
Hm, I don't like using the squash & merge because it means the PR's sha's aren't the same as the one merged, which can make backporting a bit more annoying
<infinisil>
And also, here you should have at least 2 commits, one for the maintainer adding and one for the rest. The squash button can't do that