RFC 55 - Remove inactive Nixpkgs committers #88867
Comments
Mic92
added
0.kind: bug
|
I could not find an email address for @ts468. |
|
I will send out emails to each affected account later this day. |
|
@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. |
|
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) |
|
Oh man, a bunch of cool folks :) |
|
They are still welcome to contribute to the project. |
|
I'm still here 😄 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. |
|
Done. I suggest this is automated via github actions. |
|
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 :) |
|
I'd like to keep access if possible. |
|
If you don't mind my asking, why would you want to keep access but not be on the maintainers list? 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. |
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. |
|
This is our list as of the 7th January: |
|
Hey all. I'm fine with resigning my commit access. Although I'm still using Nix/NixOS, since the war started I don't have much energy to contribute, and realistically it's not going to change any time soon.
It was a pleasure to be a part of such a great community and I hope to return someday in the future 💔
|
|
I would like to keep my commit access if possible. I don't use it nor asked for it to actually commit anything, just to be able to transfer issues from NixOS/nix to NixOS/nixpkgs, which is needed every other week. |
|
I am no longer involved with the Nix community, nor do I have any plans to ever be involved again. |
I think we can just exclude all nix core team members from the filter. |
|
I am still available; however, I am busy with other work at present. I plan on being more involved in a few months from now once I get a new workstation. |
I'd like to keep me commit access for a similar reason as @thufschmitt above. To be able to move tickets from other repos (nixos-homepage/nixos-search/...). |
We should probably drop your commit bit then and you can just ask for it again once you are more active again. |
|
Hi friends! |
tomodachi94
added
the
5. scope: tracking
|
There are some committers leaving recently. I notice that some (maybe all) of them are still listed in the nixpkgs-committers team. Does that mean they still have commit access? Should we remove their commit access? |
|
@jian-lin probably yes. But we should ping them before it happens. Can you make a list of them? |
|
Here is the list: @lilyinstarlight Unlike people in the above list, IvarWithoutBones does not leave on their own initiative but has been inactive since 2023-04-28 (see #322266) I search through PRs with the |
|
IMO this case is not covered by RFC55 and might need a small amendment. |
I believe that you have to do a RFC amendment to remove committers under this premise. I'd also like to note that the removals @zimbatm made recently should be reverted, esp. considering that the new governance decision structure might be based on the commiter role. Fwiw I'd like to keep commit access for the next two months or so, so I can finish the work related to GSoC in an efficient manner, I'm fine with being dropped afterwards. |
Sorry, I should have probably created a dedicated issue for this instead of hijacking this issue. I know that this is not the case RFC55 is designed for. I post it here merely to let people know about this. To me, the commit access is for helping maintain Nixpkgs. If someone leaves, it makes senses to remove their commit access. Of course, they can ask for it again if they return in the future (similar to what @Janik-Haag says).
I didn't consider this. This is indeed an interesting point. Anyway, my goal of letting people be aware of this is reached. |
|
It's just super weird to have people with commit access that are not in the maintainers file, because we also use this for our tooling. So I would say the folks that we keep their commit access should be re-added to the maintainers file |
|
There are valid situations in which somebody get commit access without currently maintaining any packages. Whatever tooling you use, it should be able to deal with that, and I'd find it weird to add blank maintainers entries just to work around deficiencies in some tooling |
|
The maintainers is a straight forward way to find someones contact details without requiring any api and the githubId will also allow to match users even when they change their usernames. I think this is the minimum of accountability that we can expect for people that can commit. Also the only response we got so far is from Janik, who only needs to commit access until after GSoc. |
|
I accept being removed of commit rights. Although I have made a few
contributions, I always go through PR and wait for others to merge.
…On Sun, Jul 07, 2024 at 12:35:22PM -0700, Jörg Thalheim wrote:
The maintainers is a straight forward to find someones contact details without requiring any api and the githubId will also allow to match users even when they change their usernames. I think this is the minimum of accountability that we can expect for people that can commit.
--
Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub:
#88867 (comment)
You are receiving this because you were mentioned.
Message ID: ***@***.***>
|
Having the commit bit implies having a maintainership role - not necessarily a package maintainership role. Indeed, sporadic package maintenance does not even require having a dedicated field in maintainers set. Therefore, if the person relinquished the maintainership, it makes no sense to keep the commit bit. |
|
Inactive as of 20.01.2024 starting at 2024-01-01 |
|
Hi, I'm confused by the methodology here and it is unreasonable to consider me inactive in any sense of the word. I have a bunch of PRs to nixpkgs in the last year and commits practically monthly, in spite of deliberately reducing the work I'm doing in nixpkgs to only what is essential. I can file a PR to be added to the maintainers list once more because I do have to do nixpkgs work for work. |
|
It's this script that checks if there are commits: https://github.com/nix-community/rfc55/blob/dfcb9d837725d9f9554146fbd3c9800e5f6fe69b/inactive_maintainers/__init__.py#L47 Haven't checked why it doesn't work in your case. |
|
Somehow github thinks you are not doing any commits. Maybe your emails is not associated with the github account? EDIT whatever this is. I don't care, just worked around it: nix-community/rfc55@c58eab1 not worth the effort for a script that I run once a year. |
|
I would guess that somewhere some quoting or escaping is missing because of the trailing dash. |
and others
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:
To retain access we need at least one contribution until then.
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: