rfcs
rfcs copied to clipboard
NixOS
[RFC 0167] nixpkgs maintainer requirements
This PR adds an expectation and requirement for nixpkgs maintainers to include two forms of contact information. The first is an account on the nixpkgs hosting platform (GitHub) and the second is an alternative form such as email, matrix and adds discourse.
Rendered final maintainer-list.nix
This RFC has not acquired enough shepherds. This typically shows lack of interest from the community. In order to progress a full shepherd team is required. Consider trying to raise interest by posting in Discourse, talking in Matrix or reaching out to people that you know.
If not enough shepherds can be found in the next month we will close this RFC until we can find enough interested participants. The PR can be reopened at any time if more shepherd nominations are made.
See more info on the Nix RFC process here
I would like to nominate myself as shepherd. I don't have prior experience shepherding a RFC, but I do know how to engage with the community and get things moving.
I nominate @RaitoBezarius, which I know has already spent a lot of time thinking about this topic
I nominate @RaitoBezarius, which I know has already spent a lot of time thinking about this topic
I humbly accept.
I see two shepherds.
@RaitoBezarius
@Janik-Haag
Looking for 1 more.
I am willing to be a shepherd
This pull request has been mentioned on NixOS Discourse. There might be relevant details there:
https://discourse.nixos.org/t/rfcsc-meeting-2024-03-05/40851/1
This pull request has been mentioned on NixOS Discourse. There might be relevant details there:
https://discourse.nixos.org/t/rfcsc-meeting-2024-03-19/41829/1
This seems to introduce a lot of unnecessary bureaucracy with no real upside because it doesn't change what maintainers' responsibilities, despite being reachable which is in and of itself not very valuable.
I'd argue that being reachable is value and should be a minimum requirement of being a maintainer. How will you respond to issues with packages you maintain if you can't be reached?
One of the core tenants of this RFC is to establish a requirement for maintainers to have an account on the nixpkgs hosting platform (aka GitHub). This does have value as spelled out in the RFC.
One of the core tenants of this RFC is to establish a requirement for maintainers to have an account on the nixpkgs hosting platform (aka GitHub). This does have value as spelled out in the RFC.
Have you tried establishing how many maintainers actually don't have a GitHub account (which isn't the same as how many lib.maintainers entries don't have a github account associated)? I doubt there will be more than a handful since it has been cumbersome and unreliable to contribute to nixpkgs without a GitHub account for a while now. Maintainers without a GitHub account are probably inactive by now anyways, as the discourse patch category is practically unusable and efforts like nixpkgs-dev have stalled.
To me it looks like this is, if anything, a matter of clean up and amending the missing github account names to the maintainer list – both shouldn't require an RFC as well.
To me it looks like this is, if anything, a matter of clean up and amending the missing github account names to the maintainer list – both shouldn't require an RFC as well.
I would tend to agree, but unfortunately such changes have in the past not been well received and some do consider this a significant enough change to warrant the RFC process. I’m happy to modify the scope of what is currently written here, but unless something has changed some of this cannot be implemented by PR alone.
The requirement for an account may seem logical, but has not been consistently followed. We need to make it official.
Relates to: https://github.com/NixOS/nixpkgs/pull/273220 https://github.com/NixOS/nixpkgs/pull/272199 https://github.com/NixOS/nixpkgs/pull/273146
This pull request has been mentioned on NixOS Discourse. There might be relevant details there:
https://discourse.nixos.org/t/rfcsc-meeting-2024-04-02/42643/1
This pull request has been mentioned on NixOS Discourse. There might be relevant details there:
https://discourse.nixos.org/t/rfcsc-meeting-2024-04-16/43512/1
For those following along, the changes in maintainer-list.nix are now presented as a diff. The final rendered version of this file is now linked in the original description and is here https://github.com/adamcstephens/nixpkgs/blob/rfc0167/maintainers/maintainer-list.nix
As working on this, I wondered if maybe we should also move all of this content to the README.md in maintainers/ and put a reference note in the current location. This would allow for proper markdown rendering and niceties. :) Thoughts?
This pull request has been mentioned on NixOS Discourse. There might be relevant details there:
https://discourse.nixos.org/t/rfcsc-meeting-2024-05-14/45414/1
This pull request has been mentioned on NixOS Discourse. There might be relevant details there:
https://discourse.nixos.org/t/rfcsc-meeting-2024-05-28/46113/1
RFCSC: @Janik-Haag is there anything blocking this PR moving forward? Can you post a status update, indicate the next steps or organize a shepherd meeting that can help move this RFC to completion.
This pull request has been mentioned on NixOS Discourse. There might be relevant details there:
https://discourse.nixos.org/t/rfcsc-meeting-2024-06-10/46817/1
This pull request has been mentioned on NixOS Discourse. There might be relevant details there:
https://discourse.nixos.org/t/rfcsc-meeting-2024-06-24/47589/1
I don't plan to pursue this any further, and the shepherd has left the community. Feel free to adopt as desired.