https://github.com/NixOS/rfcs/pull/138
We are searching for 1 or 2 more RFC shepherds, if you’re interested let us know!
Present: @infinisil (author), @lheckemann (lead shepherd), @Winter (shepherd, first half)
-
Not having inline comments is a drawback of the suggested process and that should be mentioned in the Drawbacks section
- As a mitigation: an issue can reference specific code lines and GitHub will embed them.
- @infinisil: Doesn’t replace the line-comment view, can’t see all comments for a file
- @lheckemann: It’s a drawback, should be documented, if accepted we took it into account
-
More Pre-RFC discussions
- @lheckemann: What does it entail?
- @winter: The question is where the boundary between “Pre-RFC” and “actual RFC” lies
-
@infinisil:
- With this idea you can develop and discuss an RFC together before publishing it
- To publish it, just open an issue in the NixOS/rfcs repo, the process of discussing and developing stays the same
-
@lheckemann: What about using a fork of the rfcs repo and creating a PR?
-
@infinisil: Discussions are tied to the repository, not the branch → Can’t have multiple rfcs at the same time in discussion for one GitHub organization/user
- Could avoid with different accounts, or for time-distinct rfcs, detach/rename the old fork, create a new one
- @infinisil: PR’s would invite duplicate discussions in the PR code review comments
-
@infinisil: Discussions are tied to the repository, not the branch → Can’t have multiple rfcs at the same time in discussion for one GitHub organization/user
-
@lheckemann: Easy to lose discussions if repository is not under the NixOS organizations control, are we okay with that risk?
- @infinisil: Ideally in the future: Automation that creates repositories in the NixOS organization
-
@infinisil: What about archiving RFC repositories, is that possible?
- @lheckemann: Archiving shouldn’t be needed because the RFC should take the feedback into account in some section
-
@infinisil: Maybe it should be a blocker for this RFC
- @lheckemann: Not sure if it needs to block, but we should document the decision as part of the RFC text
- @infinisil: Happens very rarely in any case
-
@Winter: User could delete the repository for cleanup. How about asking the user to transfer the repository under the NixOS organization, require it as a condition
- @infinisil: E.g. github.com/NixOS/rfc-NUMBER
-
@lheckemann: What happens with multiple forks?
- @infinisil: Another reason not use forks
- @lheckemann: Turns out, can’t transfer forked repo
-
@Winter: Maybe shouldn’t clutter the NixOS organization, use a separate one?
- @infinisil: Don’t see as a problem
- @lheckemann: Can pin important repos
-
Tied too much to GitHub?
-
@lheckemann: Would not be tied to GitHub if we don’t require transferring the repository (see above)
- @infinisil: Already tied to it, so another discussion
-
@lheckemann: Would not be tied to GitHub if we don’t require transferring the repository (see above)
-
How to find more shepherds?
- @infinisil: Could ask on discourse
- @lheckemann: Not that important for now as long as we can make progress
- @Winter: @piegames was asked but doesn’t have time
- @infinisil: Publish meeting notes on Discourse, mentioning this
-
@infinisil: How to proceed? Try it out?
-
@lheckemann: Does this even need an RFC? People could just do it, you kind of did already
- @infinisil: It’s simpler to only have one process
-
@infinisil: If optional, the RFC’s not being developed/discussed in a repository may still invite huge threads, there’s no way to know in advance how big a discussion will get
- @lheckemann: Not much point in a “suggestion” RFC
-
@lheckemann: Does this even need an RFC? People could just do it, you kind of did already
-
@infinisil: Point out how to watch for changes/issues in an RFC discussion repo
Action items
- Cover line-comment view in Drawbacks section
- Cover fork/PR approach in Alternatives section
- Require transfer of the merged RFC repository to the NixOS organization
- Mention potential future automation
- Publish meeting notes on Discourse with a call for shepherds
- Cover alternative of this being optional and not required
- Cover how to watch a repository RFC
- Create calendar event for regular bi-weekly meeting, same time