Unsure if I agree here. It’s a good reminder that we’re talking about nixpkgs here, not NixOS, which is supported across many distros, macos, and wsl. I don’t see why a home management module would be restricted to just supporting NixOS when the packages aren’t (edit: more or less what @emily mentioned later in the thread). Loosely related but the point of RFC 163 is to allow having some limited support for operating systems supported by Nix.
The refactorings don’t necessarily have to be done in HM, or its default branch. It can just be forked off, refactored, and then merge the fork into nixpkgs. I don’t mean to say that we shouldn’t discuss this with HM maintainers; we should, and I think the people in this thread have made honest efforts to get in touch with them.
I disagree. “Reinventing the wheel” is an alternative of the proposed RFC in this thread, so it’s still relevant here. On that note, @AndersonTorres perhaps the RFC title could be agnostic of HM itself? I don’t mean the contents itself, that can still push for HM assimilation.
Fully agree here.
I would much prefer using either Discourse or GitHub for these discussions since they force people to slow down and type larger messages instead of a relatively spammy mess. Although I suppose a Matrix channel would be made post-RFC creation anyway?