The before and after of
nix-instantiate --eval -A lib.teams --strict --json | jq 'walk(if type == "array" then sort else . end)'
has been ensured to be negligible, only consisting of minor team
shortName and scope differences
We recently introduced a mostly-self-service onboarding workflow for new
GitHub teams, which is as simple as creating the team with the right
parent team.
The wording on how to lose maintainer status implied that this was per
package. While this is true, we also follow the same procedure for
entirely inactive maintainers, dropping them from all packages,
including their maintainer handle.
I'm a friend of making things shorter, this should leave enough room for
interpretation of both.
Since removal of inactive maintainers implies that maintainer-list.nix
is about *active* maintainers, clarify that as well.
This documents the requirement for a github and githubId fields in
maintainer handles. It does explicitly not enforce this requirement,
yet, becaue there are still some maintainers without.
Enforcment via tests/CI will happen in a separate step.
It's actually easier to request the user by ID and check the name
matches, because the name is going to differ more significantly on a
typo than the ID.
As of b01ca00aed (CODEOWNERS: Switch to alternate mechanism,
2024-10-10) and #336261, this repository doesn't use the GitHub
CODEOWNERS file, but instead has its own similar mechanism. Remove and
update references to the CODEOWNERS file in various documentation files.
* maintainer-list: Document automatic invites to @NixOS/nixpkgs-maintainers
* maintainers/scripts: Add `get-maintainer.sh`
Supports querying `maintainers-list.nix` by Nix attribute,
email address, github name or id, matrix account, or name.
* maintainers/scripts/get-maintainer.sh: More verbose help message
* maintainers/scripts/get-maintainer.sh: Fix (some) `shellcheck` lints
* maintainers/scripts: Add README
* maintainers/scripts/get-maintainer.sh: Put inline documentation at the top of the file
* maintainers/scripts: Document this is not a stable interfact to nixpkgs
Co-authored-by: Silvan Mosberger <github@infinisil.com>
* scripts/README: Add example for `get-maintainer.sh`
---------
Co-authored-by: Silvan Mosberger <github@infinisil.com>
* maintainers: document expectations
Motivated by https://discourse.nixos.org/t/where-did-you-get-stuck-in-the-nix-ecosystem-tell-me-your-story
Address the uncertainty around maintainers by defining what it
means, what are the expectations and power you get.
* change the wording to be a bit more lax on losing maintainer status
* clarify how removal happens
* expand the reasoning a bit more
* Update maintainers/README.md
Co-authored-by: 7c6f434c <7c6f434c@mail.ru>
* Update maintainers/README.md
Co-authored-by: Valentin Gagarin <valentin.gagarin@tweag.io>
* Update maintainers/README.md
Co-authored-by: Valentin Gagarin <valentin.gagarin@tweag.io>
* Update maintainers/README.md
Co-authored-by: Valentin Gagarin <valentin.gagarin@tweag.io>
* Update maintainers/README.md
Co-authored-by: Valentin Gagarin <valentin.gagarin@tweag.io>
* Update maintainers/README.md
Co-authored-by: Valentin Gagarin <valentin.gagarin@tweag.io>
* Update maintainers/README.md
Co-authored-by: Frederik Rietdijk <freddyrietdijk@fridh.nl>
---------
Co-authored-by: 7c6f434c <7c6f434c@mail.ru>
Co-authored-by: Valentin Gagarin <valentin.gagarin@tweag.io>
Co-authored-by: Frederik Rietdijk <freddyrietdijk@fridh.nl>
No content was changed, new titles are wrapped with () to signal that
they will need to be decided on in a future commit.
Section in the manual have been preserved with a simple redirect to
GitHub, the proper anchors should be filled out in a future commit once
the new section names are decided.
