| 23 May 2021 |
 @grahamc:nixos.org | API rate limit, I don't feel very precious about the code in ofborg | 12:52:18 |
| @grahamc:nixos.org | also I'd be happy to expand merge and deployment rights | 12:52:36 |
| @grahamc:nixos.org | gotta run, I'm doing airport stuff today, so I'll be afk for several hours | 12:53:20 |
 andi- | More features into ofborg would really be nice. There was some discussion a out code owners recently. You can't use groups right now as the group requires write access to be mentioned. This would be something ofborg could do as well. It would allow maintainers to be pinged without them having commit access. | 12:54:19 |
 Sandro | If it would require a redeploy for every change it would be a hassle | 12:56:00 |
| andi- | It depends on the kind of change. For the code owners example it should be based off the repo checkout and not some config file. | 12:57:28 |
 lukegb (he/him) | Right, there's no reason that parts of the ofborg config couldn't be in the main nixpkgs repo | 13:36:33 |
| lukegb (he/him) | especially if it's just a json file read off master | 13:36:42 |
| andi- | I was more thinking about implementing the same codeowner format that GitHub already users | 13:42:29 |
| andi- | That would allow us to overcome the shortcomings of GitHubs implementation while only maintaining one file. | 13:42:51 |
| andi- | I know that @piegames:matrix.org has run into that issue lately. | 13:43:51 |
| andi- | (now would be a nice time to throw an invite to the channel to that person...) | 13:44:10 |
| Sandro | https://matrix.to/#/#ofborg:nixos.org | 13:45:20 |
 cole-h | Redeploying for every change isn't really a hassle ;)
That said, I think using the tag config inside Nixpkgs itself is a good idea. | 16:05:29 |
 Alyssa Ross | I had a WIP branch for that | 16:06:22 |
| Alyssa Ross | oh, think I deleted it though | 16:06:54 |
| Sandro | do you have a ref? maybe github didn't delete it yet | 16:31:23 |
| Alyssa Ross | don't think I pushed it | 16:32:11 |
| Alyssa Ross | pretty sure it's gone -- I did have a look | 16:32:18 |
| cole-h | Probably wasn't pushed :P | 16:32:19 |
| Alyssa Ross | I don't think it was all that much work anyway so no great loss | 16:32:28 |
| Alyssa Ross | like, I managed to work it out having never touched OfBorg before | 16:32:47 |
| Alyssa Ross | so it couldn't have been very hard | 16:32:58 |
| cole-h | Maybe you're just that smart ;) | 16:34:00 |
| Alyssa Ross | I don't think so :) | 16:34:16 |
| cole-h | (I do) | 16:34:28 |
| cole-h | But regardless! It is something I want to tackle. | 16:34:43 |
| cole-h | ...eventually. The week ahead of me is very, very busy, so probably gonna take some time to get to it... | 16:35:11 |
|  philipp joined the room. | 21:04:21 |
| 24 May 2021 |
| andi- | grahamc (he/him) / cole-h : any opinions about adding codeowners functionality to ofBorg? The rational is that codeowners currently don't work for groups and maintainers as those need write access to be pinged on changes to specific parts of the repository. | 11:00:57 |
