| 10 Apr 2023 |
 cole-h | If so, I'd accept a PR adding a new, failing status check in the case that a PR's rebuilds exceeds that amount on any platform.
Otherwise, I'd want that to be codified somewhere before ofborg starts enforcing it. | 13:39:20 |
 K900 | "Mass rebuilds are commits that cause rebuilds for many packages, like more than 500 (or perhaps, if it’s “light” packages, 1000)." | 13:39:27 |
| K900 | I don't think it's really enforced all that much | 13:40:04 |
 ma27 | however there are exceptions, IIRC critical openssl patches went straight to master in the past for instance. | 13:40:22 |
| K900 | But around 2000 is usually where people start complaining | 13:40:25 |
| K900 | Or at least where I notice people complaining | 13:40:43 |
 tea | btw, kind of unrelated, but saving for later: why doesn't ofborg do nixpkgs-review-pr anymore? | 13:41:18 |
| cole-h | I'm still somewhat hesitant (how many times has this happened in the past and caused an issue? honest question), but I wouldn't block anything in that case. Though "at least 500, or at least 1000" is kinda noodly. | 13:41:24 |
| K900 | It doesn't happen that often | 13:41:45 |
| K900 | But I'd say that's an argument for it, not against | 13:41:58 |
| K900 | As most PRs will never see it | 13:42:06 |
| K900 | Also, the exact number can always be tweaked later if it becomes a problem | 13:42:56 |
| cole-h | In reply to @noob_tea:matrix.org
btw, kind of unrelated, but saving for later: why doesn't ofborg do nixpkgs-review-pr anymore? I'm not sure it ever did...? AFAIK, it only ever built packages based on the commit message in a given PR. | 13:43:02 |
| cole-h | Which is why nixpkgs policy is to name commits attr: description | 13:43:35 |
