search

exercism / org-wide-files

MIT License
7 stars 8 forks source link

consider removing `exercism-tooling` topic exercism-wide #206

Open ee7 opened 2 years ago

ee7 commented 2 years ago

It seems that the set of repos with the exercism-tooling topic is exactly the set of repos with exercism-test-runner or exercism-representer or exercism-analyzer.

So would it be better to remove exercism-tooling everywhere, and check one of those other topics is present?

Pros that I can see:

  1. It would prevent the two sets from drifting apart, which might cause e.g. some repo to be omitted by some change. Evidence that topics are somewhat error-prone already: I mentioned to Erik that exercism/abap-test-runner was missing its topics.
  2. exercism-tooling is an unclear name: to an outsider, it is not obvious which repos should have the exercism-tooling topic. Someone might wonder why it's missing from, say, exercism/org-wide-files, exercism/github-actions, or exercism/configlet. We can't add it, because then @exercism-bot will create PRs that add deploy.yml.
  3. It would help the problem in https://github.com/exercism/nim-docker-base/pull/12. A base docker image that is used by a test-runner is "exercism tooling", but it shouldn't currently have the exercism-tooling topic.
  4. We could then more reasonably add a new topic to group "tooling repos" that are not test runners, representers, or analyzers, which currently do not have a topic.

Cons that I can see:

  1. Somebody can't go to https://github.com/search?q=org%3Aexercism+topic%3Aexercism-tooling to see every test runner, representer, and analyzer repo (assuming that the topic is correctly applied).
  2. Time to implement.

It looks like the exercism-tooling topic is only referenced in workflows in org-wide-files, and some local scripts on the machines of people who would be notified of this issue. So maybe it's worth removing it.

SaschaMann commented 2 years ago

The topics have been appropriated for the use in the org-wide-files flows. I'd argue we should lean towards changing org-wide-files rather than changing the topic. That said, I'm not sure if anyone uses topics for anything else so it might not be a problem.

ee7 commented 2 years ago

I'd argue we should lean towards changing org-wide-files rather than changing the topic.

I didn't understand this. Could you rephrase?

My suggestion was to remove the exercism-tooling topic from every repo, and make the below lines check for either exercism-test-runner, exercism-representer, or exercism-analyzer: https://github.com/exercism/org-wide-files/blob/8b1b6e4b0bc193960aee8b08ff650e3d960ba7ff/.github/workflows/sync-rest.yml#L88-L90

https://github.com/exercism/org-wide-files/blob/8b1b6e4b0bc193960aee8b08ff650e3d960ba7ff/.github/workflows/sync-rest.yml#L250

https://github.com/exercism/org-wide-files/blob/8b1b6e4b0bc193960aee8b08ff650e3d960ba7ff/.github/workflows/sync-tooling.yml#L82-L84

https://github.com/exercism/org-wide-files/blob/8b1b6e4b0bc193960aee8b08ff650e3d960ba7ff/README.md#L7

I'm not sure if anyone uses topics for anything else so it might not be a problem.

Erik said that he'd have to update some of his own scripts. But if you don't have local scripts that use exercism-tooling, there might not be anywhere else.

SaschaMann commented 2 years ago

I didn't understand this. Could you rephrase?

I meant to say that if the way org-wide-files interprets that topic prevents the topic from being applied to a repo, e.g. nim-docker-base, we should change org-wide-files.

I don't have any local scripts.