NixOS
RFC 55 - Remove inactive Nixpkgs committers
As part of RFC55 we move inactive members of the "Nixpkgs Committers team" to the "Nixpkgs Committers Emeritus" (not created yet). The migration will happen on the 25th June.
These are the inactive accounts according to https://github.com/nix-community/rfc55:
- @aycanirican commits
- @bluescreen303 commits
- @dezgeg commits
- @GrahamcOfBorg commits
- @kosmikus commits
- @lovek323 commits
- @matejc commits
- @nckx commits
- @ocharles commits
- @Phreedom commits
- @rushmorem commits
- @the-kenny commits
- @ts468 commits
- @viric commits
- @vrthra commits
- @wkennington commits
To retain access we need at least one contribution until then.
@grahamc Can we move @GrahamcOfBorg to https://github.com/orgs/NixOS/teams/nixpkgs-maintainers As far as I know members of this group can also do labels and request reviews.
@Mic92 @GrahamcOfBorg needs write access to be able to push status checks.
ok. I planned to ignore ofborg account anyway. It just came up as an inactive account.
@Mic92 I presume the hash.domains address listed for @ts468 in the maintainer list is not functional?
I've removed myself from nixpgs-committers since I won't be committing any time soon, but who knows what the future will bring. Please sign me up for the emeritus newsletter & free hat.
viric and aycanirican have pushed since, and can be removed from the list.
@Mic92 It's been a month, could you please cause the new team to be created? (My IRC setup is currently broken)
The list is now a bit shorter:
- @bluescreen303 commits
- @dezgeg commits
- @kosmikus commits
- @lovek323 commits
- @matejc commits
- @ocharles commits
- @Phreedom commits
- @rushmorem commits
- @the-kenny commits
- @ts468 commits
- @vrthra commits
- @wkennington commits
I'm still here :smile: But yes, I am "inactive" generally, and am ok with being moved.
I apologize for the inactivity, life took a rather busy turn, and could not focus more on Nix as much as I wanted to. I am OK with being removed.
@domenkozar @edolstra I don't have the rights to setup this group. Could you move those accounts to the right team?
I've created https://github.com/orgs/NixOS/teams/nixpkgs-committers-emeritus/members and invited everyone there. Going to now delete them from committers list.
Since we do this every year only it would take a while until the automation pays off I suppose. I also don't know if github has API for those permission changes.
Once per year sounds doable, I didn't read the RFC and thought this is on a rolling basis.
Hi. I have just switched back to using NixOS more frequently and will be interested in offering contributions again. Any chance I can get added back to the group with push access?
@lovek323 feel free to open PRs and once you have a few we can add you back :)
This would be the list of inactive committers for January 2020:
- @aristidb commits
- @chaoflow commits
- @copumpkin commits
- @cstrahan commits
- @Fuuzetsu commits
- @jgeerds commits
- @maggesi commits
- @MP2E commits
- @nbp commits
- @periklis commits
- @rbvermaa commits
- @ryantrinkle commits
If you don't mind my asking, why would you want to keep access but not be on the maintainers list? https://github.com/NixOS/nixpkgs/commit/1451a52a38f2dda459647a5c2628e7c28e17c4dc
To review and merge PRs? Get back into it when you have more time?
In the past I have often needed some trivial software updates done and it was just much easier for a everyone involved when I was able to just push those directly and keep using the authoritative nixpkgs rather than make a fork, branch, PR, wait for review and then switch back to nixpkgs when merged.
I appreciate that anyone else could say the same so I will not be upset if I get removed here. It also would feel silly to push some random change for the sake of it though so I just asked instead.
This is our list of inactive members as of 10th January:
- @aristidb commits
- @chaoflow commits
- @copumpkin commits
- @cstrahan commits
- @Fuuzetsu commits
- @jgeerds commits
- @maggesi commits
- @MP2E commits
- @nbp commits
- @periklis commits
- @rbvermaa commits
- @ryantrinkle commits
In the past I have often needed some trivial software updates done and it was just much easier for a everyone involved when I was able to just push those directly and keep using the authoritative nixpkgs rather than make a fork, branch, PR, wait for review and then switch back to nixpkgs when merged.
I appreciate that anyone else could say the same so I will not be upset if I get removed here. It also would feel silly to push some random change for the sake of it though so I just asked instead.
If you do less than one change per year, the pull request review workflow should also work well. Most the of the longer open pull requests are non-trivial changes.
If you do less than one change per year, the pull request review workflow should also work well. Most the of the longer open pull requests are non-trivial changes.
It's more like 95 commits per year if you look at the commit history over time, not last year. As I said though, feel free to take me off the list.
If you do less than one change per year, the pull request review workflow should also work well.
Especially with the recent treewide changes please at least get an ofborg eval to avoid breaking eval on master.
I went through the list and moved retired maintainers to their new team.
If you wish to contribute to nixpkgs, you can do so via PRs and then if it becomes frequent, ask for commit access again :)
![stale[bot] avatar](https://avatars.githubusercontent.com/in/1724?v=4 "Published by a pub.dev verified publisher"){kind=small}