nerf

0 followers · 0 following

• Joined on 2021-09-07

Repositories

2

Projects Packages Public activity Starred repositories

1

nerf commented on pull request Fachschaft/nixConfig#30 2024-08-18 16:40:54 +00:00

lobon (Mailman-VM)

we could move this to the general vm role, right? Every vm makes backups this way, (or am i missing something?)

nerf commented on pull request Fachschaft/nixConfig#30 2024-08-18 16:40:54 +00:00

lobon (Mailman-VM)

See above comment about who handles tls, we might not need 443 and 80

nerf commented on pull request Fachschaft/nixConfig#30 2024-08-18 16:40:54 +00:00

lobon (Mailman-VM)

I love and hate this so much,maybe we should/could make this script its own package? maybe idiomatically correct but overkill.

nerf commented on pull request Fachschaft/nixConfig#30 2024-08-18 16:40:54 +00:00

lobon (Mailman-VM)

are these allowed to be empty?

nerf commented on pull request Fachschaft/nixConfig#30 2024-08-18 16:40:54 +00:00

lobon (Mailman-VM)

same as above?

nerf suggested changes for Fachschaft/nixConfig#30 2024-08-18 16:40:54 +00:00

lobon (Mailman-VM)

It is more like, please answer my questions (and depending what the answers is, change some minor stuff), and

nerf synced commits to main at nerf/choirMail from mirror 2024-04-05 00:04:58 +00:00

6ab55f82a6 base version bounce

nerf opened issue Fachschaft/nixConfig#36 2024-04-04 14:48:52 +00:00

Backup config

nerf commented on pull request Fachschaft/nixConfig#30 2024-04-04 14:44:36 +00:00

lobon (Mailman-VM)

refactoring the backup process sounds like something, that we should do uniform across all VM. So I think we should do that in a dedicated pull request. I will open an issue for that. Finding a…

nerf commented on pull request Fachschaft/nixConfig#30 2024-04-04 14:42:26 +00:00

lobon (Mailman-VM)

This is probably a bigger refactoring pull request and outside the scope of this one.

nerf commented on pull request Fachschaft/nixConfig#30 2024-04-04 14:01:42 +00:00

lobon (Mailman-VM)

Hmm, I didn't have thought about the following:

nerf commented on pull request Fachschaft/nixConfig#30 2024-04-04 14:01:42 +00:00

lobon (Mailman-VM)

See comment on the other sops file.

nerf commented on pull request Fachschaft/nixConfig#30 2024-04-04 14:01:42 +00:00

lobon (Mailman-VM)

can we set NoNewPrivileges = true;? or does it break the service?

nerf approved Fachschaft/nixConfig#35 2024-04-03 13:58:37 +00:00

Bragi cleanup

I should've noticed the missing --delete last review.

nerf pushed to bragi at Gonne/nixConfig 2024-04-03 13:32:11 +00:00

3f096f5205 Remove obsolete DNS resolver

5db6227011 Also sync deletion of files from fsaccount before taking the backup

fbaa296cfa Move secrets to machine config

cabd210aa6 [#33] Refactored existing network config

Compare 4 commits »

nerf deleted branch nerf/networkConfig from nerf/nixConfig 2024-04-03 13:30:22 +00:00

nerf pushed to main at Fachschaft/nixConfig 2024-04-03 13:30:21 +00:00

cabd210aa6 [#33] Refactored existing network config

nerf merged pull request Fachschaft/nixConfig#34 2024-04-03 13:30:20 +00:00

[#33] Refactored existing network config

nerf suggested changes for Fachschaft/nixConfig#35 2024-04-02 14:09:52 +00:00

Bragi cleanup

Even though I think both things are no brainers, it still feels like this should be two pull requests. (Or at the very least two separate commits) (to split these interactive git rebase and interactive git add, are your friend.)

nerf commented on pull request Fachschaft/nixConfig#34 2024-04-02 14:05:11 +00:00

[#33] Refactored existing network config

I'm not sure if it is required (I would guess no). But if kind of find it idiomatic to put it there. We should agree if we do it or not and then enforce it across the whole codebase.