tilpner has quit [Read error: Connection reset by peer]
tilpner has joined #nixos-borg
hmpffff has quit [Quit: Bye…]
cole-h has quit [Quit: Goodbye]
orivej_ has quit [Ping timeout: 260 seconds]
orivej has joined #nixos-borg
orivej has quit [Ping timeout: 260 seconds]
orivej has joined #nixos-borg
orivej has quit [Ping timeout: 264 seconds]
orivej has joined #nixos-borg
orivej has quit [Ping timeout: 260 seconds]
orivej has joined #nixos-borg
evanjs has quit [Read error: Connection reset by peer]
orivej has quit [Ping timeout: 256 seconds]
orivej has joined #nixos-borg
orivej has quit [Ping timeout: 264 seconds]
orivej has joined #nixos-borg
orivej has quit [Ping timeout: 264 seconds]
orivej_ has joined #nixos-borg
orivej_ has quit [Ping timeout: 246 seconds]
orivej has joined #nixos-borg
orivej has quit [Ping timeout: 258 seconds]
orivej has joined #nixos-borg
orivej has quit [Quit: No Ping reply in 180 seconds.]
orivej has joined #nixos-borg
evanjs has joined #nixos-borg
orivej has quit [Quit: No Ping reply in 180 seconds.]
orivej has joined #nixos-borg
orivej has quit [Quit: No Ping reply in 180 seconds.]
orivej has joined #nixos-borg
orivej has quit [Ping timeout: 258 seconds]
orivej has joined #nixos-borg
orivej has quit [Ping timeout: 256 seconds]
orivej has joined #nixos-borg
<LnL>
hmm 89776 still requested reviews from everybody :/
orivej has quit [Ping timeout: 246 seconds]
cole-h has joined #nixos-borg
<cole-h>
Hmmm, I wonder why... Definitely looks like more than 64 paths to me...
<LnL>
:D
<cole-h>
(Sorry I've been MIA recently -- been hardcore relaxing the past week-ish.)
<cole-h>
Oh, the reason it pinged everybody is because merging failed lol
<LnL>
huh?
<cole-h>
The changed_paths check is in `all_evaluations_passed` -- and all of the evaluations didn't pass, meaning we never got to the point
<LnL>
why would that ping everybody
<cole-h>
Well, because the touched paths are code-owners
<cole-h>
have code-owners*
<cole-h>
Nothing we can do about that, I think
<LnL>
oh! thought I checked that
<cole-h>
It's unfortunate, but that's how code-owners works... x)
<cole-h>
So nothing wrong on our end, methinks.
<LnL>
maybe we should phase that out
<cole-h>
lol
<cole-h>
Or maybe we could just limit it to teams
<cole-h>
I think you can request review of a team but not every member
<LnL>
was kind of added as an alternative to the mention bot from way back when
<cole-h>
(I think I saw this with a recent acme-related PR)
<cole-h>
...well, I guess that wouldn't really solve anything
<cole-h>
I think maybe all but the most core of packages shouldn't need a code-owner (e.g. I would think nix itself and its branches, some of the scripts NixOS uses to do its job, etc.)
<cole-h>
lib/* should, linux should, that kind of thing.
<LnL>
yeah, but we can do that similar to the labels
<cole-h>
I guess.
<cole-h>
Also, unrelated, but the aarch deploy has failed 2 weeks in a row now... `context deadline exceeded` for packet creds
<LnL>
come to think of it using a label might be a good way to handle this stuff
<LnL>
assuming label updates also trigger webhooks
<cole-h>
In what way?
<LnL>
for an initial check of a pr that looks "large" or wrong apply an ofborg: skipped label instead of doing anything
<LnL>
if somebody removes the label then go through all the checks and steps anyway
<cole-h>
I see.
<cole-h>
I think we can probably do that. Just need to re-add the labeled/unlabeled variants to PullRequestAction.
<cole-h>
Or rather, first step would be to do that.