Switch branches/tags
Nothing to show
Find file Copy path
Fetching contributors…
Cannot retrieve contributors at this time
80 lines (61 sloc) 2.79 KB
feature start-date author co-authors related-issues
Robin Gloster (@globin)
Franz Pletz (@fpletz)


NixOS currently has no process for electing release managers (RMs). We propose to switch to a model with two RMs, where each RM SHOULD serve for a consecutive term of two releases. A new RM is appointed by the previous team for each new release.


Currently release managing in NixOS has mostly been done by individuals who volunteered and were then chosen by the last release manager. Over the last few releases a process has been established and documented. As this makes it easier to cut a release this role should be passed on regularly and not be held by a single individual over a longer time.

Detailed design

For each release there are two RMs. After each release the RM having managed two releases steps down and the RM team of the last release appoint a new RM.

This makes sure a RM team always consists of one RM who already has managed one release and one RM being introduced to their role, making it easier to pass on knowledge and experience.

A release manager's role is mostly facilitating:

  • manage the release process
  • start discussions about features and changes for a given release
  • create a roadmap
  • release in cooperation with Eelco Dolstra
  • decide which bug fixes, features etc. get backported after a release

The process outlined in this RFC has informally started by @globin taking over the role from @domenkozar for NixOS 17.03 and having the latter as a backup and contact at all times for questions and support. We propose to continue this by appointing @fpletz for the second RM, who has been working with @globin a lot to keep the additional overhead of communication to a minimum at the beginning.


There is more communicational overhead but by having a second RM two individuals are checking the issues from a RM's point of view. Additionally it ensures that there is always one RM with the experience of having released NixOS once before.


We can consider continuing the process as is and not specifying it formally, this will probably continue to work but does not ensure the role being passed on regularly.

There are other possibilities how a RM can be elected, by vote (who by?), by @edolstra, RFCs, etc. This would mean even more overhead and the need of defining eligibility to vote or centring more decisions around @edolstra.

Unresolved questions

Nothing we can currently think of.

Future work

  • Specifying the process for releasing NixOS itself.