consider removing exercism-tooling topic exercism-wide

[ee7]

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 Build: remove AWS from deploy targets nim-docker-base#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]

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]

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:

org-wide-files/.github/workflows/sync-rest.yml

Lines 88 to 90 in 8b1b6e4

	const toolingRepos = (await github.paginate(github.rest.search.repos, {
	q: 'org:exercism+topic:exercism-tooling+is:public+archived:false'
	})).flatMap(({ full_name }) => [full_name])

org-wide-files/.github/workflows/sync-rest.yml

Line 250 in 8b1b6e4

return repoTopics[0].names.includes('exercism-tooling')

org-wide-files/.github/workflows/sync-tooling.yml

Lines 82 to 84 in 8b1b6e4

	const trackRepos = await github.paginate(github.rest.search.repos, {
	q: 'org:exercism+topic:exercism-tooling+is:public+archived:false'
	})

org-wide-files/README.md

Line 7 in 8b1b6e4

Tooling and track repos are determined by their `exercism-tooling` and `exercism-track` topic.

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]

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.