| 22 Mar 2023 |
 @piegames:matrix.org | In reply to @k900:0upti.me
The problem is we can't really just do bors because it doesn't understand this kind of thing We are large enough to need our own solution, yes | 11:36:12 |
 K900 | It doesn't understand "this person is the maintainer for this package and should be allowed to merge changes to it" | 11:37:00 |
| @piegames:matrix.org | In reply to @k900:0upti.me
And any time I think about how to do it properly it ends up in "rewrite hydra lol" You really mean Hydra here or rather OfBorg? | 11:37:06 |
| K900 | Both | 11:37:12 |
| K900 | The fact that they're two different things is part of the issue tbh | 11:37:31 |
| @piegames:matrix.org | Nah, just start your own thing next to OfBorg. I think the GitHub lock-in battle is lost anyways for us, so better embrace it and split it up into smaller pieces | 11:37:44 |
 Wanja Hentze | In reply to @k900:0upti.me
It doesn't understand "this person is the maintainer for this package and should be allowed to merge changes to it" it supports CODEOWNERS, that can do the trick as long as file granularity is good enough | 11:38:39 |
 snowytrees | Would it restrict what files a maintainer are allowed to change to merge? That could be an interested use of the RFC for a flattened nixpkgs with no top-level. As now as long as the file change is your package you can commit it | 11:38:41 |
| K900 | In reply to @whentze:matrix.org
it supports CODEOWNERS, that can do the trick as long as file granularity is good enough Then we'd have to have something maintain codeowners | 11:39:13 |
| K900 | Which is also iffy | 11:39:21 |
 raphi | will github complain if a non-committer is in CODEOWNERS? | 11:39:32 |
| Wanja Hentze | could we generate it from meta.maintainers? | 11:39:38 |
| * @piegames:matrix.org would like to move to codeowners (or equivalent) by default anyways | 11:39:39 |
| K900 | In reply to@whentze:matrix.org
could we generate it from meta.maintainers? Possibly | 11:39:57 |
| K900 | But we'd have to build a tool for that | 11:40:05 |
| K900 | And then automate it somehow | 11:40:09 |
| Wanja Hentze | yes currently our CODEOWNERS mostly lists people with commit but but it should actually be the opposite imo | 11:40:12 |
| K900 | In reply to@raphi:tapesoftware.net
will github complain if a non-committer is in CODEOWNERS? Also good question | 11:40:23 |
 Alyssa Ross | CODEOWNERS only works for committers, no? | 11:40:25 |
| Wanja Hentze | if you have the commit bit you don't need CODEOWNERS anyway | 11:40:32 |
| K900 | But yeah basically the answer is "someone needs to write the damn thing and see what happens" | 11:40:38 |
| Alyssa Ross | it won't even let you add a team unless they're all committers | 11:40:38 |
| Wanja Hentze | oh damn | 11:40:55 |
| Alyssa Ross | yeah | 11:40:59 |
| Alyssa Ross | github makes some interesting decisions sometimes | 11:41:06 |
| @piegames:matrix.org | There are alternatives to CODEOWNERS written as GitHub action that suck less | 11:41:08 |
| Wanja Hentze | what the hell is it even for then | 11:41:13 |
| raphi | auto pining people in PRs | 11:41:22 |
| raphi | * auto pinging people in PRs | 11:41:27 |
| Alyssa Ross | well most repositories don't have "OWNERS" who can't commit | 11:41:36 |
