feat(services/forgejo): generalize configuration #179
No reviewers
Labels
No labels
Compat/Breaking
Difficulty
Architectural
Difficulty
Easy
Difficulty
Hard
Help Wanted
Kind
Bug
Kind
Documentation
Kind
Enhancement
Kind
Feature
Kind
Testing
Priority
Critical
Priority
High
Priority
Low
Priority
Medium
Reviewed
Confirmed
Reviewed
Duplicate
Reviewed
Invalid
Reviewed
Won't Fix
Security
Silenced Alert
Status
Abandoned
Status
Blocked
Status
Need More Info
Status
Postponed
Tracking Issue
No milestone
No project
No assignees
2 participants
Notifications
Due date
No due date set.
Dependencies
No dependencies set.
Reference: the-distro/infra#179
Loading…
Add table
Add a link
Reference in a new issue
No description provided.
Delete branch "forgejo-lix"
Deleting a branch is permanent. Although the deleted branch may continue to exist for a short time before it actually gets removed, it CANNOT be undone in most cases. Continue?
To welcome git.lix.systems in our ranks.
TODO:
nix-forgejo
to make it uniformSigned-off-by: Raito Bezarius masterancpp@gmail.com
feat(services/forgejo): generalize configurationto WIP: feat(services/forgejo): generalize configuration41c66cb629
to0b3487adfc
@raito can you take a look at
41c66cb629..0b3487adfc
(force push diff) and let me know what you think?I removed a few things that are already the default upstream (like
services.mysql
andservices.forgejo.database.user
) and added an escape hatch (cfg.settings
) and moved"git.timeout".MIGRATE
out of the module.Similarly, the Lix-specific values in
ui
andsecurity.DISABLE_GIT_HOOKS
can live outside the module now.Also, is
security.DISABLE_GIT_HOOKS
actually actively used? I would prefer to drop it if not.The git.lix.systems config could look something like:
Click to expand WIP config
And I could restructure https://git.lix.systems/the-distro/nix-forgejo a bit and add a stable variant with the Lix patches instead of having them in-tree here.
I worry that we end up in a situation again where a simple nixpkgs bump is deferred because some patch does not apply.
@emilylange wrote in #179 (comment):
Looks good to me!
0b3487adfc
to832289cf95
832289cf95
to2fc580de34
WIP: feat(services/forgejo): generalize configurationto feat(services/forgejo): generalize configuration