Skip to content
New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

[WIP] nixpkgs support warnings #77434

wants to merge 1 commit into
base: master


Copy link

@LnL7 LnL7 commented Jan 10, 2020

Alternative for #23590 based on time instead.

This only partially solves the problems mentioned in #23590 (comment), but perhaps it's good enough to create at least some visibility. While something fully dynamic would be more correct, it also requires networking which is undesirable in certain conditions.

Things done
  • Tested using sandboxing (nix.useSandbox on NixOS, or option sandbox in nix.conf on non-NixOS linux)
  • Built on platform(s)
    • NixOS
    • macOS
    • other Linux distributions
  • Tested via one or more NixOS test(s) if existing and applicable for the change (look inside nixos/tests)
  • Tested compilation of all pkgs that depend on this change using nix-shell -p nixpkgs-review --run "nixpkgs-review wip"
  • Tested execution of all binary files (usually in ./result/bin/)
  • Determined the impact on package closure size (by running nix path-info -S before and after)
  • Ensured that relevant documentation is up to date
  • Fits
Copy link

@Infinisil Infinisil commented Jan 10, 2020

Perhaps there should be a way to silence this warning with an option.

Copy link
Member Author

@LnL7 LnL7 commented Jan 10, 2020

Yeah definitively, but I want to hear what everybody thinks about the idea before finishing it.

Copy link

@balsoft balsoft commented Jan 24, 2020

Why keep a statefile in the repository when we can do something smarter like read the already existing lib.version and infer the deprecation time from that?

Copy link

@stefano-m stefano-m commented Jan 25, 2020

Yes please, let's do this. 🙏

Copy link

@stale stale bot commented Jul 23, 2020

Hello, I'm a bot and I thank you in the name of the community for your contributions.

Nixpkgs is a busy repository, and unfortunately sometimes PRs get left behind for too long. Nevertheless, we'd like to help committers reach the PRs that are still important. This PR has had no activity for 180 days, and so I marked it as stale, but you can rest assured it will never be closed by a non-human.

If this is still important to you and you'd like to remove the stale label, we ask that you leave a comment. Your comment can be as simple as "still important to me". But there's a bit more you can do:

If you received an approval by an unprivileged maintainer and you are just waiting for a merge, you can @ mention someone with merge permissions and ask them to help. You might be able to find someone relevant by using Git blame on the relevant files, or via GitHub's web interface. You can see if someone's a member of the nixpkgs-committers team, by hovering with the mouse over their username on the web interface, or by searching them directly on the list.

If your PR wasn't reviewed at all, it might help to find someone who's perhaps a user of the package or module you are changing, or alternatively, ask once more for a review by the maintainer of the package/module this is about. If you don't know any, you can use Git blame on the relevant files, or GitHub's web interface to find someone who touched the relevant files in the past.

If your PR has had reviews and nevertheless got stale, make sure you've responded to all of the reviewer's requests / questions. Usually when PR authors show responsibility and dedication, reviewers (privileged or not) show dedication as well. If you've pushed a change, it's possible the reviewer wasn't notified about your push via email, so you can always officially request them for a review, or just @ mention them and say you've addressed their comments.

Lastly, you can always ask for help at our Discourse Forum, or more specifically, at this thread or at #nixos' IRC channel.

@stale stale bot added the 2.status: stale label Jul 23, 2020
Copy link

@stefano-m stefano-m commented Jul 25, 2020

I think this is still relevant and it would be great if a core contributor could review and possibly merge it.

@stale stale bot removed the 2.status: stale label Jul 25, 2020
@ryantm ryantm marked this pull request as draft Oct 23, 2020
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
None yet
Linked issues

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

None yet

4 participants
You can’t perform that action at this time.