Skip to content
New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

Sign up for GitHub

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

Jump to bottom

.github/workflows: re-add editorconfig #96238

Merged
merged 1 commit into from Aug 30, 2020
Merged

.github/workflows: re-add editorconfig #96238

merged 1 commit into from Aug 30, 2020

Conversation

zowoq
Copy link
Contributor

@zowoq zowoq commented Aug 25, 2020

Motivation for this change
Things done
  • Tested using sandboxing (nix.useSandbox on NixOS, or option sandbox in nix.conf on non-NixOS linux)
  • Built on platform(s)
    • NixOS
    • macOS
    • other Linux distributions
  • Tested via one or more NixOS test(s) if existing and applicable for the change (look inside nixos/tests)
  • Tested compilation of all pkgs that depend on this change using nix-shell -p nixpkgs-review --run "nixpkgs-review wip"
  • Tested execution of all binary files (usually in ./result/bin/)
  • Determined the impact on package closure size (by running nix path-info -S before and after)
  • Ensured that relevant documentation is up to date
  • Fits CONTRIBUTING.md.

@zowoq zowoq requested a review from Mic92 as a code owner August 25, 2020 05:50
@zowoq zowoq marked this pull request as draft August 25, 2020 05:50
@zowoq
Copy link
Contributor Author

zowoq commented Aug 25, 2020 •
edited

I'll wait for a bit couple of days until we see that "Wait for ofborg" isn't causing any problems.

@zowoq
Copy link
Contributor Author

zowoq commented Aug 29, 2020

The "Wait for ofborg" actions don't seem to have caused any problems.

@zowoq zowoq marked this pull request as ready for review August 29, 2020 01:04
@Mic92 Mic92 merged commit 5c78154 into NixOS:master Aug 30, 2020
@zowoq zowoq deleted the revert-editorconfig branch August 30, 2020 11:50
@timokau
Copy link
Member

timokau commented Sep 3, 2020

Would it be possible to only mark this check as a failure when it has passed before? I don't like that I have to make unrelated formatting changes whenever I'm touching some non-conforming file now.

@timokau
Copy link
Member

timokau commented Sep 3, 2020

To be clear I like the check itself, although I do agree with @FRidh that it should at least be announced on discourse.

@zowoq
Copy link
Contributor Author

zowoq commented Sep 3, 2020

Would it be possible to only mark this check as a failure when it has passed before? I don't like that I have to make unrelated formatting changes whenever I'm touching some non-conforming file now.

I'd imagine that it could be done somehow but I don't really see that it would be worth the effort. There are ~22000 files in the repo and ~800 errors in ~500 files. IIRC was about ~1400 errors a week ago.

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Reviewers

@Mic92 Mic92 Awaiting requested review from Mic92 Mic92 is a code owner

Assignees
No one assigned
Labels
6.topic: policy discussion 10.rebuild-darwin: 0 10.rebuild-linux: 0
Projects
None yet
Milestone
No milestone
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

None yet
3 participants
@zowoq @timokau @Mic92