| 29 May 2023 |
 profpatsch | yet another case of placing trust in a new technology that’s not even a year old yet (matrix threads and archiving), is all I’m gonna say :) | 11:18:32 |
 @piegames:matrix.org | In reply to @infinisil:matrix.org
piegames: Does this sound good to you? IMO it's overkill, since this not a strict standard in the first place. You could also sneak in a "this will be documented" sentence into the RFC where it fits, but even that I don't think is really necessary. I think it is reasonable for people to expect that any changes are properly reflected in the documentation to keep it up to date, without having to explicitly mention it. | 11:20:51 |
 infinisil | "This will be documented" is in the RFC already :P | 11:21:35 |
| @piegames:matrix.org | Oh, I see. Then no actions needed here IMO | 11:22:45 |
| infinisil | Hmm, how about "This RFC describes the initial standard. The up-to-date standard will be in the Nixpkgs manual. Smaller changes to the standard may be performed by the Nixpkgs Architecture Team without an RFC, while larger changes will need another RFC" | 11:23:33 |
|  @archive:matrix.org joined the room. | 11:28:14 |
| @piegames:matrix.org | I know you like to formalize these things a lot more strictly, I personally prefer to keep things fuzzy and up to common sense unless there is strong indication not to. Personally I'd like to even get rid of the word "standard", as to me it's more just a thing we do and less like a specification we implement. (Also I disagree that only the NAT may make smaller changes to it.) | 11:30:53 |
| @piegames:matrix.org | How about "This standard is internal to Nixpkgs and not exposed as public interface**, and may be subject to change over time**" | 11:31:16 |
| @piegames:matrix.org | * How about "This standard is internal to Nixpkgs and not exposed as public interface * , and may be subject to change over time* " | 11:31:26 |
| @piegames:matrix.org | * How about "This standard is internal to Nixpkgs and not exposed as public interface , and may be subject to change over time " | 11:31:35 |
| @piegames:matrix.org | * How about "This standard is internal to Nixpkgs and not exposed as public interface , and may be subject to changes in the future " | 11:31:48 |
| infinisil | Since the NAT developed this standard and went through the effort to get it approved with an RFC, I don't think it would be alright for others to make changes to it without also getting it approved by the NAT | 11:33:07 |
| @piegames:matrix.org | I mean, any substantial changes would need a new RFC anyways | 11:33:50 |
| @piegames:matrix.org | I recommend adding yourself as codeowner to related files, so that you can keep track of things that people are doing in that space. | 11:35:04 |
| infinisil | Yeah, I don't think this should be controversial. I expect anybody who wants to make smaller changes to first talk to me and Robert Hensing (roberth) at least. | 11:35:18 |
| infinisil | If the change is not controversial, there won't be a problem. And if the change is controversial, I will complain about it and demand an RFC :P | 11:36:53 |
| @piegames:matrix.org | that's basically my approach, yes | 11:37:49 |
| infinisil | And yeah, code owners for sure, but I'd also like a "needs to be approved by somebody from the NAT before it can be merged". I will try to make it so that the standard's implementation files are separated from anything not involving the standard. | 11:39:54 |
| @piegames:matrix.org | Personally not a fan, but if you really want to then put that into the RFC and see if anybody else complains | 11:41:49 |
 Alyssa Ross | what if the NAT stops existing, or being active? | 11:42:22 |
| Alyssa Ross | it sounds unnecessarily prescriptive given how much ownership evolves in Nixpkgs | 11:42:55 |
| @piegames:matrix.org | Is the NAT one of the "blessed" Nix teams? (I remember seeing some Discourse announcements about making some teams more official entities than others, forgot the wording) | 11:43:22 |
| infinisil | In reply to @qyliss:fairydust.space
what if the NAT stops existing, or being active? Same thing when people stop contributing, escalate to ones with more power. | 11:44:09 |
| Alyssa Ross | but we can't do that if it's in an RFC | 11:44:40 |
| Alyssa Ross | we'd need a whole new RFC | 11:44:46 |
| infinisil | The NAT has existed for a while now already, and I'll make sure that it continues existing, and I trust the other members to continue the NAT in case I happen to have an accident or so. A team is at least much better than a single individual | 11:44:57 |
| Alyssa Ross | we've never had an RFC restrict who can change parts of Nixpkgs before | 11:45:16 |
| Alyssa Ross | nor has any problem that I'm aware of ever come up that suggests such a heavy handed restriction is necessary | 11:45:41 |
| infinisil | I think this is being blown out of proportion | 11:46:42 |
| infinisil | We're talking about situations where: The standard needs a small uncontroversial change, the NAT team does not exist anymore, there's enforced protection of changes to the standard | 11:47:57 |
