The Nix community RFCs
Switch branches/tags
Nothing to show
Clone or download
dtzWill and edolstra [RFC 0023] Support musl libc (#23)
* copy rfc template, unnumbered as of yet

* musl-libc RFC: first draft

* musl-libc RFC: rename to patch pull req number

* musl-libc: whoops, no links in top bit, that's metadata.

Move links to later.

* record the name of a brave co-author

* musl rfc: squash second batch of changes

* rfc: specify initial team \o/, add a small clarification.

* Add myself to the "musl team"
Latest commit 13b5084 Jun 28, 2018

Nix RFCs

Many changes, including bug fixes and documentation improvements can be implemented and reviewed via the normal GitHub pull request workflow.

Some changes though are "substantial", and we ask that these be put through a bit of a design process and produce a consensus among the Nix community.

This is the bulk of the RFC. Explain the design in enough detail for somebody familiar with the ecosystem to understand, and implement. This should get into specifics and corner-cases, and include examples of how the feature is used.

When this process is followed

This process is followed when one intends to make "substantial" changes to the Nix ecosystem. What constitutes a "substantial" change is evolving based on community norms, but may include the following.

  • Any semantic or syntactic change to the language that is not a bug fix
  • Removing language features
  • Big restructuring of Nixpkgs
  • Expansions to the scope of Nixpkgs (new arch, major subprojects, ...)
  • Introduction of new interfaces or functions

Certain changes do not require an RFC:

  • Adding, updating and removing packages in Nixpkgs
  • Fixing security updates and bugs that don't break interfaces

Pull requests that contain any of the aforementioned 'substantial' changes may be closed if there is no RFC connected to the proposed changes.

Description of the process

In short, to get a major feature added to the Nix ecosystem, one should first go through the RFC process in order to improve the likelihood of inclusion. Here are roughly the steps that one would take:

  • Fork the RFC repository
  • Copy to rfcs/ (where 'my-feature' is descriptive. don't assign an RFC number yet).
  • Fill in the RFC
  • Submit a pull request. Rename the RFC with the PR number. (eg: PR #123 would be rfcs/

At this point, the person submitting the RFC should find at least one "co-author" that will help them bring the RFC to completion. The goal is to improve the chances that the RFC is both desired and likely to be implemented.

Once the author is happy with the state of the RFC, they should seek for wider community review by stating the readiness of the work. Advertisement on the mailing-list and IRC is an acceptable way of doing that.

After a number of rounds of review the discussion should settle and a general consensus should emerge. This bit is left intentionally vague and should be refined in the future. We don't have a technical committee so controversial changes will be rejected by default.

If a RFC is accepted then authors may implement it and submit the feature as a pull request to the Nix or Nixpkgs repository. An 'accepted' RFC is not a rubber stamp, and in particular still does not mean the feature will ultimately be merged; it does mean that in principle all the major stakeholders have agreed to the feature and are amenable to merging it.

Whoever merges the RFC should do the following:

  • Fill in the remaining metadata in the RFC header, including links for the original pull request(s) and the newly created issue.
  • Commit everything.

If a RFC is rejected, whoever merges the RFC should do the following:

  • Move the RFC to the rejected folder
  • Fill in the remaining metadata in the RFC header, including links for the original pull request(s) and the newly created issue.
  • Include a summary reason for the rejection
  • Commit everything

Role of the "co-author"

The goal for assigning a "co-author" is to help move the RFC along.

The co-author should:

  • be available for discussion with the main author
  • respond to inquiries in a timely manner
  • help with fixing minor issues like typos so community discussion can stay on design issues

The co-author doesn't necessarily have to agree with all the points of the RFC but should generally be satisfied that the proposed additions are a good thing for the community.


All contributions are licensed by their respective authors under the CC-BY-SA 4.0 License.