| 29 May 2023 |
 @piegames:matrix.org | I have very mixed feelings about this | 11:10:34 |
 infinisil | I was suggesting to use a directory called _WhatsThisDirectory, which then contains a Readme.md file | 11:10:45 |
| infinisil | In reply to @qyliss:fairydust.space
Wouldn't GitHub display the content of the README for the directory though? Ah true, though wouldn't it be displayed only after all the subdirs are shown, which are like over 700? | 11:11:11 |
| @piegames:matrix.org | Maybe an empty folder called __SeeReadmeFirst? | 11:11:34 |
| @piegames:matrix.org | There is a button to collapse the file view, and I think the mobile view even does this by default | 11:12:23 |
| infinisil | I feel like we can just add a clause to the RFC stating that "The standard may be adjusted slightly in order to allow better documentation of it" | 11:12:27 |
 Alyssa Ross | I'm not thrilled about having to go to such lengths to compensate for GitHub's bad UI… | 11:12:40 |
| infinisil | We can also do multiple things, both a readme in the root, and a _WhatsThisDirectory directory | 11:13:21 |
| infinisil | Can't have too many entrypoints for documentation imo :) | 11:13:35 |
| Alyssa Ross | out of curiosity, if I do an actual reply, does it show up in the thread? | 11:13:59 |
| infinisil | Alyssa Ross: Nope | 11:14:12 |
 profpatsch | It might be good for posterity if discussions were on the discourse | 11:14:32 |
| profpatsch | On Matrix they get lost | 11:14:39 |
| profpatsch | At least summaries of discussions | 11:14:56 |
| @piegames:matrix.org | In reply to @qyliss:fairydust.space
out of curiosity, if I do an actual reply, does it show up in the thread? It used to do that when threads were still preview, IIRC. Curious to see that it changed since then | 11:14:57 |
| profpatsch | discourse does have nested replies, yes, afaik it just displays them in a flat way | 11:15:10 |
| profpatsch | but you can reply to a certain message and it will have a link | 11:15:20 |
| infinisil | Profpatsch: We can have permalinks, and since recently there's https://archive.matrix.org/ | 11:15:27 |
| profpatsch | infinisil: I would not trust that one bit | 11:15:39 |
| infinisil | I'll link to this discussion from the RFC afterwards | 11:15:41 |
| profpatsch | also probably very bad SEO | 11:15:43 |
| profpatsch | NixOS discourse is something this community controls | 11:16:04 |
| profpatsch | which is not at the mercy of matrix.org keeping stuff for us | 11:16:17 |
| Alyssa Ross | so is logs.nixos.dev | 11:16:19 |
| infinisil | Anyways, we're diverging again, I'd just like to discuss the documentation problem for the RFC | 11:16:25 |
| infinisil | In reply to @infinisil:matrix.org
I feel like we can just add a clause to the RFC stating that "The standard may be adjusted slightly in order to allow better documentation of it" piegames: Does this sound good to you? | 11:17:05 |
| 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 |
