Extend rfcbot to work for other teams, repos

[anp]

@nrc, #61 (comment):

Feature request: work with https://github.com/rust-lang-nursery/fmt-rfcs I think all that would need would be using the style team for all PRs, rather than looking for a T- label. (Which is probably useful functionality to have for other repos too).

---

I can definitely see this being useful for other repos. Would it still be lower friction to specify which team(s) should review in the command? Something like @ rfcbot fcp merge style? That would at least not require teaching the bot about which teams own which repos, but it may not be sufficiently ergonomic to be a good replacement.

[chriskrycho]

This is a lower-priority addendum to this request, of course; focus should primarily be on Rust… but if, along the way in this, you happen to be able to make it easier for non-Rust teams to use rfcbot, I strongly suspect at least one other community (:cough:Ember:cough:) might be interested.

[nrc]

for fmt-rfcs, there are no other teams involved, so it will always be the style team. Adding style to the rfcbot command feels worse than having a t-style label on everything (but not much)

[nikomatsakis]

I would love to be able to use this for random projects, as well. e.g., I've thought about having a LALRPOP RFC process, as well as a Rayon one.

[anp]

There's already a configuration file for specifying team members and their associated labels, shouldn't be too hard to make the other rust-lang specific bits configurable too.

[anoadragon453]

For reference, this was all the things necessary to change when making rfcbot work for our team:

• Rebrand rfcbot to something else, including the mention string (@rfcbot) It requires quite a lot of find-and-replaces, and would be nicer if it was in a config file.
• Change migrations/s content to be applicable for our team. This is all fine for a currently implemented bot, and even fine to keep in the repo, but keeping bootstrap.sql, which seems to have been removed from the repo at the moment (but not repo history, which makes the repo way larger than necessary. I recommend bfg) up to date would be immensely useful.
• Changing the teams in the config files, which was fine, but also changing the organizations which have been hard-coded. Moving the orgs to a config file would be great, and perhaps modifying the database when the teams in the config file changes rather than doing complicated manual DB migrations would be best.
• Clear setup instructions. I've made a document here about what's required to get the bot running.

Overall thank you for making the bot, it works really well!

[anp]

@anoadragon453 super useful, thank you! If you end up making some of these values configurable via the toml file I'd be very happy to review a PR. I agree that the database situation is iffy, moving to a configuration file was the first step in supporting databases without the rust-lang-* history and it would probably be a decently sized project to take it all the way but one that would be worth doing.

It would be super cool if eventually we could make all of the consensus logic configurable so that the two orgs could use the same codebase.