I suggest renaming the pins.json file to sources.json. I personally find it more pleasing, but it would also be more consistent with Niv (and what I'd like to see in nixpkgs later on).
Furthermore, I propose renaming all hash fields in the JSON file to XXX_hash, in order to make more clear what the hash is about. So for git this will be revision_hash and for GitHub this will be tarball_hash. At the moment, there is some (slight) conceptual ambiguity because git revisions are also hashes. (For example, the hash field for GitHub pins could either be the hash of the tarball or the git commit.)
I suggest renaming the
pins.jsonfile tosources.json. I personally find it more pleasing, but it would also be more consistent with Niv (and what I'd like to see in nixpkgs later on).Furthermore, I propose renaming all
hashfields in the JSON file toXXX_hash, in order to make more clear what the hash is about. So for git this will berevision_hashand for GitHub this will betarball_hash. At the moment, there is some (slight) conceptual ambiguity because git revisions are also hashes. (For example, thehashfield for GitHub pins could either be the hash of the tarball or the git commit.)