From 8d656d2ca0cb3bd74b18833c8e7afe6c0da560e7 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001 From: Eric Sagnes Date: Mon, 26 Sep 2016 15:36:03 +0900 Subject: [PATCH 1/4] nixos-doc: add reviewing-contributions --- .github/CONTRIBUTING.md | 3 + .github/PULL_REQUEST_TEMPLATE.md | 4 + nixos/doc/manual/development/development.xml | 1 + .../development/reviewing-contributions.xml | 257 ++++++++++++++++++ 4 files changed, 265 insertions(+) create mode 100644 nixos/doc/manual/development/reviewing-contributions.xml diff --git a/.github/CONTRIBUTING.md b/.github/CONTRIBUTING.md index fb8c6b53cb5d..0d2219a4ba6c 100644 --- a/.github/CONTRIBUTING.md +++ b/.github/CONTRIBUTING.md @@ -30,3 +30,6 @@ under the terms of [COPYING](../COPYING), which is an MIT-like license. See the nixpkgs manual for more details on how to [Submit changes to nixpkgs](http://hydra.nixos.org/job/nixpkgs/trunk/manual/latest/download-by-type/doc/manual#chap-submitting-changes). +## Reviewing contributions + +See the nixpkgs manual for more details on how to [Review contributions](http://hydra.nixos.org/job/nixpkgs/trunk/manual/latest/download-by-type/doc/manual#chap-reviewing-contributions). diff --git a/.github/PULL_REQUEST_TEMPLATE.md b/.github/PULL_REQUEST_TEMPLATE.md index 981ed156b343..7318ed14d091 100644 --- a/.github/PULL_REQUEST_TEMPLATE.md +++ b/.github/PULL_REQUEST_TEMPLATE.md @@ -15,5 +15,9 @@ - [ ] Tested execution of all binary files (usually in `./result/bin/`) - [ ] Fits [CONTRIBUTING.md](https://github.com/NixOS/nixpkgs/blob/master/.github/CONTRIBUTING.md). +###### Reviewing this pull-request + +See the nixpkgs manual for more details on how to [Review contributions](http://hydra.nixos.org/job/nixpkgs/trunk/manual/latest/download-by-type/doc/manual#chap-reviewing-contributions). + --- diff --git a/nixos/doc/manual/development/development.xml b/nixos/doc/manual/development/development.xml index 2983c76c770b..caf72bc776a2 100644 --- a/nixos/doc/manual/development/development.xml +++ b/nixos/doc/manual/development/development.xml @@ -17,5 +17,6 @@ NixOS. + diff --git a/nixos/doc/manual/development/reviewing-contributions.xml b/nixos/doc/manual/development/reviewing-contributions.xml new file mode 100644 index 000000000000..3024595e09cd --- /dev/null +++ b/nixos/doc/manual/development/reviewing-contributions.xml @@ -0,0 +1,257 @@ + + +Reviewing contributions + +The nixpkgs projects receives a fairly high number of contributions via github pull-requests. Reviewing and approving these is an important task and a way to contribute to the project. + +The high activity of nixpkgs change make any pull request that is open for long enough subject to conflicts that will require extra from the submitter or the merger. Reviewing pull requests in a timely manner and being responsive to the comments is the key to avoid these. Github provides sort filters that can be used to see the most recently and the least recently updated pull-requests. + +When reviewing a pull request, please always be nice and polite. Controversial changes can lead to controversial opinions, but it is important to respect every community members and their work. + +Github provides emoji, they are a simple and quick way to provide feedback to pull-requests or any comments. The thumb-down emoji should be used with care and if possible accompanied with some explanations so the submitter has directions to improve his contribution. + +Pull-requests reviews should include a list of what has been reviewed in a comment, so other reviewers and mergers can know the state of the review. + +All the review template samples that are provided in this section are generic, and should be adapted by the reviewer to fit the pull-request content by adding or removing review points. + +
Package updates + +A package update is the most trivial and common type of pull-request. These pull-requests mainly consist in updating the version part of the package name and the source hash. +It can happen that non trivial updates include patches or more complex changes. + +Reviewing process: + + + Add labels to the pull-request. + + 8.has: package (update) and any topic label that fit the updated package. + + + Checking that the package versioning is fitting the guidelines. + Checking that the commit text is fitting the guidelines. + Checking that the package maintainers are notified. + + mention-bot usually notify github users based on the submitted changes, but it can happen that it miss some of the package maintainers. + + + Checking that the code contains no typos. + Building the package locally. + + Pull-requests are often targetted to the master or staging branch so building the pull-request locally as it is submitted can trigger a large amount of source builds. + It is possible to rebase the changes on nixos-unstable or nixpkgs-unstable for easier review. + +TODO: add commands for a local rebase and build + + + + + Running every binary. + Checking that the packages using the updated package are building fine. + +TODO: add commands + + + + +Sample template for a package update review + +##### Reviewed points + +- [ ] package name fits guidelines +- [ ] package version fits guidelines +- [ ] package build on ARCHITECTURE +- [ ] executables tested on ARCHITECTURE +- [ ] all depending packages build + +##### Possible improvements + +##### Comments + + +
+ +
New packages + +New packages are a common type of pull-requests. These pull requests consists in adding a new nix-expression for a package. + +Reviewing process: + + + Add labels to the pull-request. + + 8.has: package (new) and any topic label that fit the new package. + + + Checking that the package versioning is fitting the guidelines. + Checking that the commit name is fitting the guidelines. + Checking that the meta field contains correct information. + + License must be checked to be fitting upstream license. + Platforms should be set or the package will not get binary substitutes. + If there is no maintainer, propose the submitter to become the maintainer. + + + Checking that the code contains no typos. + Checking the package source. + + Mirrors urls should be used when available. + The most appropriate function should be used (e.g. packages from github should use fetchFromGithub). + + + Building the package locally. + Running every binary. + + +Sample template for a new package review + +##### Reviewed points + +- [ ] package path fits guidelines +- [ ] package name fits guidelines +- [ ] package version fits guidelines +- [ ] package build on ARCHITECTURE +- [ ] executables tested on ARCHITECTURE +- [ ] `meta.description` is set and fits guidelines +- [ ] `meta.license` fits upstream license +- [ ] `meta.platforms` is set +- [ ] `meta.maintainers` is set +- [ ] build time only dependencies are declared in `nativeBuildInputs` +- [ ] source is fetched using the appropriate function +- [ ] phases are respected +- [ ] patches that are remotely available are fetched with `fetchPatch` + +##### Possible improvements + +##### Comments + + +
+ +
Module updates + +Module updates are submissions changing modules in some ways. These often contains changes to the options or introduce new options. + +Reviewing process + + + Add labels to the pull-request. + + 8.has: module (update) and any topic label that fit the module. + + + Checking that the module maintainers are notified. + + Mention-bot notify github users based on the submitted changes, but it can happen that it miss some of the package maintainers. + + + Checking that the module tests, if any, are succeeding. + Checking that the introduced options are correct. + + Type should be appropriate (string related types differs in their merging capabilities, optionSet and string types are deprecated). + Description, default and example should be provided. + + + Checking that option changes are backward compatible. + + mkRenamedOptionModule and mkAliasOptionModule functions provide way to make option changes backward compatible. + + + Checking that removed options are declared with mkRemovedOptionModule + Checking that changes that are not backward compatible are mentioned in release notes. + Checking that documentations affected by the change is updated. + + +Sample template for a module update review + +##### Reviewed points + +- [ ] changes are backward compatible +- [ ] removed options are declared with `mkRemovedOptionModule` +- [ ] changes that are not backward compatible are documented in release notes +- [ ] module tests succeed on ARCHITECTURE +- [ ] options types are appropriate +- [ ] options description is set +- [ ] options example is provided +- [ ] documentation affected by the changes is updated + +##### Possible improvements + +##### Comments + + +
+ +
New modules + +New modules submissions introduce a new module to NixOS. + + + Add labels to the pull-request. + + 8.has: module (new) and any topic label that fit the module. + + + Checking that the module tests, if any, are succeeding. + Checking that the introduced options are correct. + + Type should be appropriate (string related types differs in their merging capabilities, optionSet and string types are deprecated). + Description, default and example should be provided. + + + Checking that module meta field is present + + Maintainers should be declared in meta.maintainers. + Module documentation should be declared with meta.doc. + + + Checking that the module respect other modules functionality. + + For example, enabling a module should not open firewall ports by default. + + + + +Sample template for a new module review + +##### Reviewed points + +- [ ] module path fits the guidelines +- [ ] module tests succeed on ARCHITECTURE +- [ ] options have appropriate types +- [ ] options have default +- [ ] options have example +- [ ] options have descriptions +- [ ] No unneeded package is added to system.environmentPackages +- [ ] meta.maintainers is set +- [ ] module documentation is declared in meta.doc + +##### Possible improvements + +##### Comments + + +
+ +
Other submissions + +Other type of submissions requires different reviewing steps. + +If you consider having enough knowledge and experience in a topic and would like to be a long-term reviewer for related submissions, please contact the current reviewers for that topic. They will give you information about the reviewing process. +The main reviewers for a topic can be hard to find as there is no list, but checking past pull-requests to see who reviewed or git-blaming the code to see who committed to that topic can give some hints. + +Container system, boot system and library changes are some examples of the pull requests fitting this category. + +
+ +
Merging pull-requests + +It is possible for community members that have enough knowledge and experience on a special topic to contribute by merging pull requests. + +TODO: add the procedure to request merging rights. + +
+ From 3504a546e60b7e9c5d1fd7f083516cbb8c28361f Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001 From: Eric Sagnes Date: Tue, 27 Sep 2016 00:36:59 +0900 Subject: [PATCH 2/4] [WIP] typo fixes, few improvements --- .../development/reviewing-contributions.xml | 36 +++++++++++++------ 1 file changed, 26 insertions(+), 10 deletions(-) diff --git a/nixos/doc/manual/development/reviewing-contributions.xml b/nixos/doc/manual/development/reviewing-contributions.xml index 3024595e09cd..d7789fdaa01f 100644 --- a/nixos/doc/manual/development/reviewing-contributions.xml +++ b/nixos/doc/manual/development/reviewing-contributions.xml @@ -8,7 +8,7 @@ The nixpkgs projects receives a fairly high number of contributions via github pull-requests. Reviewing and approving these is an important task and a way to contribute to the project. -The high activity of nixpkgs change make any pull request that is open for long enough subject to conflicts that will require extra from the submitter or the merger. Reviewing pull requests in a timely manner and being responsive to the comments is the key to avoid these. Github provides sort filters that can be used to see the most recently and the least recently updated pull-requests. +The high activity of nixpkgs change make any pull request that is open for long enough subject to conflicts that will require extra work from the submitter or the merger. Reviewing pull requests in a timely manner and being responsive to the comments is the key to avoid these. Github provides sort filters that can be used to see the most recently and the least recently updated pull-requests. When reviewing a pull request, please always be nice and polite. Controversial changes can lead to controversial opinions, but it is important to respect every community members and their work. @@ -16,7 +16,7 @@ Pull-requests reviews should include a list of what has been reviewed in a comment, so other reviewers and mergers can know the state of the review. -All the review template samples that are provided in this section are generic, and should be adapted by the reviewer to fit the pull-request content by adding or removing review points. +All the review template samples provided in this section are generic and meant as examples. Their usage is optional and the reviewer is free to adapt them to his liking.
Package updates @@ -26,7 +26,7 @@ Reviewing process: - Add labels to the pull-request. + Add labels to the pull-request. (Requires commit rights) 8.has: package (update) and any topic label that fit the updated package. @@ -35,22 +35,34 @@ Checking that the commit text is fitting the guidelines. Checking that the package maintainers are notified. - mention-bot usually notify github users based on the submitted changes, but it can happen that it miss some of the package maintainers. + mention-bot usually notify github users based on the submitted changes, but it can happen that it misses some of the package maintainers. + + + Checking that the meta field contains correct information. + + License can change with version updates, so it should be checked to be fitting upstream license. + If the package has no maintainer, a maintainer must be set. This can be the update submitter or a community member that accepts to take maintainership of the package. Checking that the code contains no typos. Building the package locally. - Pull-requests are often targetted to the master or staging branch so building the pull-request locally as it is submitted can trigger a large amount of source builds. + Pull-requests are often targeted to the master or staging branch so building the pull-request locally as it is submitted can trigger a large amount of source builds. It is possible to rebase the changes on nixos-unstable or nixpkgs-unstable for easier review. TODO: add commands for a local rebase and build + + + + The nox tool can be used to review a pull-request content in a single command. It doesn't rebase on a channel branch so it might trigger many source builds. PRNUMBER should be replaced by the number at the end of the pull-request title. + +$ nox-review -k pr PRNUMBER Running every binary. - Checking that the packages using the updated package are building fine. + Checking that the packages using the updated package are building fine in case the updated package is a library or is used as a build input by many other packages. TODO: add commands @@ -81,7 +93,7 @@ TODO: add commands Reviewing process: - Add labels to the pull-request. + Add labels to the pull-request. (Requires commit rights) 8.has: package (new) and any topic label that fit the new package. @@ -92,7 +104,7 @@ TODO: add commands License must be checked to be fitting upstream license. Platforms should be set or the package will not get binary substitutes. - If there is no maintainer, propose the submitter to become the maintainer. + A maintainer must be set, this can be the package submitter or a community member that accepts to take maintainership of the package. Checking that the code contains no typos. @@ -138,7 +150,7 @@ TODO: add commands Reviewing process - Add labels to the pull-request. + Add labels to the pull-request. (Requires commit rights) 8.has: module (update) and any topic label that fit the module. @@ -190,7 +202,7 @@ TODO: add commands New modules submissions introduce a new module to NixOS. - Add labels to the pull-request. + Add labels to the pull-request. (Requires commit rights) 8.has: module (new) and any topic label that fit the module. @@ -253,5 +265,9 @@ The main reviewers for a topic can be hard to find as there is no list, but chec TODO: add the procedure to request merging rights. +Please note that contributors with commit rights unactive for more than three months will have their commit rights revoked. + +In a case a contributor leaves definitively the Nix community, he should create an issue or notify the mailing list with references of packages and modules he maintains so the maintainership can be taken over by other contributors. +
From 7ad26bdc6e52049cb505ea4973b2a1ff3c20cc76 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001 From: Eric Sagnes Date: Wed, 28 Sep 2016 11:05:22 +0900 Subject: [PATCH 3/4] improvements from feedback --- .github/PULL_REQUEST_TEMPLATE.md | 4 - .../development/reviewing-contributions.xml | 75 +++++++++++-------- 2 files changed, 44 insertions(+), 35 deletions(-) diff --git a/.github/PULL_REQUEST_TEMPLATE.md b/.github/PULL_REQUEST_TEMPLATE.md index 7318ed14d091..981ed156b343 100644 --- a/.github/PULL_REQUEST_TEMPLATE.md +++ b/.github/PULL_REQUEST_TEMPLATE.md @@ -15,9 +15,5 @@ - [ ] Tested execution of all binary files (usually in `./result/bin/`) - [ ] Fits [CONTRIBUTING.md](https://github.com/NixOS/nixpkgs/blob/master/.github/CONTRIBUTING.md). -###### Reviewing this pull-request - -See the nixpkgs manual for more details on how to [Review contributions](http://hydra.nixos.org/job/nixpkgs/trunk/manual/latest/download-by-type/doc/manual#chap-reviewing-contributions). - --- diff --git a/nixos/doc/manual/development/reviewing-contributions.xml b/nixos/doc/manual/development/reviewing-contributions.xml index d7789fdaa01f..6a6c633055e4 100644 --- a/nixos/doc/manual/development/reviewing-contributions.xml +++ b/nixos/doc/manual/development/reviewing-contributions.xml @@ -8,7 +8,7 @@ The nixpkgs projects receives a fairly high number of contributions via github pull-requests. Reviewing and approving these is an important task and a way to contribute to the project. -The high activity of nixpkgs change make any pull request that is open for long enough subject to conflicts that will require extra work from the submitter or the merger. Reviewing pull requests in a timely manner and being responsive to the comments is the key to avoid these. Github provides sort filters that can be used to see the most recently and the least recently updated pull-requests. +The high change rate of nixpkgs make any pull request that is open for long enough subject to conflicts that will require extra work from the submitter or the merger. Reviewing pull requests in a timely manner and being responsive to the comments is the key to avoid these. Github provides sort filters that can be used to see the most recently and the least recently updated pull-requests. When reviewing a pull request, please always be nice and polite. Controversial changes can lead to controversial opinions, but it is important to respect every community members and their work. @@ -31,42 +31,55 @@ 8.has: package (update) and any topic label that fit the updated package. - Checking that the package versioning is fitting the guidelines. - Checking that the commit text is fitting the guidelines. - Checking that the package maintainers are notified. + Ensure that the package versioning is fitting the guidelines. + Ensure that the commit text is fitting the guidelines. + Ensure that the package maintainers are notified. mention-bot usually notify github users based on the submitted changes, but it can happen that it misses some of the package maintainers. - Checking that the meta field contains correct information. + Ensure that the meta field contains correct information. License can change with version updates, so it should be checked to be fitting upstream license. If the package has no maintainer, a maintainer must be set. This can be the update submitter or a community member that accepts to take maintainership of the package. - Checking that the code contains no typos. + Ensure that the code contains no typos. Building the package locally. Pull-requests are often targeted to the master or staging branch so building the pull-request locally as it is submitted can trigger a large amount of source builds. - It is possible to rebase the changes on nixos-unstable or nixpkgs-unstable for easier review. + It is possible to rebase the changes on nixos-unstable or nixpkgs-unstable for easier review by running the following commands from a nixpkgs clone. -TODO: add commands for a local rebase and build +$ git remote add channels https://github.com/NixOS/nixpkgs-channels.git +$ git fetch channels nixos-unstable +$ git fetch origin pull/PRNUMBER/head:PRNUMBER +$ git rebase --onto nixos-unstable PRNUMBER + + + This should be done only once to be able to fetch channel branches from the nixpkgs-channels repository. + + + Fetching the nixos-unstable branch. + + + Fetching the pull-request changes, PRNUMBER is the number at the end of the pull-request title. + + + Rebasing the pull-request changes to the nixos-unstable branch. + + + - The nox tool can be used to review a pull-request content in a single command. It doesn't rebase on a channel branch so it might trigger many source builds. PRNUMBER should be replaced by the number at the end of the pull-request title. + The nox tool can be used to review a pull-request content in a single command. It doesn't rebase on a channel branch so it might trigger multiple source builds. PRNUMBER should be replaced by the number at the end of the pull-request title. -$ nox-review -k pr PRNUMBER +$ nix-shell -p nox --run "nox-review -k pr PRNUMBER" Running every binary. - Checking that the packages using the updated package are building fine in case the updated package is a library or is used as a build input by many other packages. - -TODO: add commands - - Sample template for a package update review @@ -98,17 +111,17 @@ TODO: add commands 8.has: package (new) and any topic label that fit the new package. - Checking that the package versioning is fitting the guidelines. - Checking that the commit name is fitting the guidelines. - Checking that the meta field contains correct information. + Ensure that the package versioning is fitting the guidelines. + Ensure that the commit name is fitting the guidelines. + Ensure that the meta field contains correct information. License must be checked to be fitting upstream license. Platforms should be set or the package will not get binary substitutes. A maintainer must be set, this can be the package submitter or a community member that accepts to take maintainership of the package. - Checking that the code contains no typos. - Checking the package source. + Ensure that the code contains no typos. + Ensure the package source. Mirrors urls should be used when available. The most appropriate function should be used (e.g. packages from github should use fetchFromGithub). @@ -155,26 +168,26 @@ TODO: add commands 8.has: module (update) and any topic label that fit the module. - Checking that the module maintainers are notified. + Ensure that the module maintainers are notified. Mention-bot notify github users based on the submitted changes, but it can happen that it miss some of the package maintainers. - Checking that the module tests, if any, are succeeding. - Checking that the introduced options are correct. + Ensure that the module tests, if any, are succeeding. + Ensure that the introduced options are correct. Type should be appropriate (string related types differs in their merging capabilities, optionSet and string types are deprecated). Description, default and example should be provided. - Checking that option changes are backward compatible. + Ensure that option changes are backward compatible. mkRenamedOptionModule and mkAliasOptionModule functions provide way to make option changes backward compatible. - Checking that removed options are declared with mkRemovedOptionModule - Checking that changes that are not backward compatible are mentioned in release notes. - Checking that documentations affected by the change is updated. + Ensure that removed options are declared with mkRemovedOptionModule + Ensure that changes that are not backward compatible are mentioned in release notes. + Ensure that documentations affected by the change is updated. Sample template for a module update review @@ -207,20 +220,20 @@ TODO: add commands 8.has: module (new) and any topic label that fit the module. - Checking that the module tests, if any, are succeeding. - Checking that the introduced options are correct. + Ensure that the module tests, if any, are succeeding. + Ensure that the introduced options are correct. Type should be appropriate (string related types differs in their merging capabilities, optionSet and string types are deprecated). Description, default and example should be provided. - Checking that module meta field is present + Ensure that module meta field is present Maintainers should be declared in meta.maintainers. Module documentation should be declared with meta.doc. - Checking that the module respect other modules functionality. + Ensure that the module respect other modules functionality. For example, enabling a module should not open firewall ports by default. From bf86f9f016e83062dbfa109aacb25af209b6fe86 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001 From: Eric Sagnes Date: Sat, 1 Oct 2016 19:02:09 +0900 Subject: [PATCH 4/4] improvements from feedback 2 --- .../development/reviewing-contributions.xml | 22 ++++++++++++------- 1 file changed, 14 insertions(+), 8 deletions(-) diff --git a/nixos/doc/manual/development/reviewing-contributions.xml b/nixos/doc/manual/development/reviewing-contributions.xml index 6a6c633055e4..69dc9797cd9d 100644 --- a/nixos/doc/manual/development/reviewing-contributions.xml +++ b/nixos/doc/manual/development/reviewing-contributions.xml @@ -6,13 +6,13 @@ Reviewing contributions -The nixpkgs projects receives a fairly high number of contributions via github pull-requests. Reviewing and approving these is an important task and a way to contribute to the project. +The nixpkgs projects receives a fairly high number of contributions via GitHub pull-requests. Reviewing and approving these is an important task and a way to contribute to the project. The high change rate of nixpkgs make any pull request that is open for long enough subject to conflicts that will require extra work from the submitter or the merger. Reviewing pull requests in a timely manner and being responsive to the comments is the key to avoid these. Github provides sort filters that can be used to see the most recently and the least recently updated pull-requests. When reviewing a pull request, please always be nice and polite. Controversial changes can lead to controversial opinions, but it is important to respect every community members and their work. -Github provides emoji, they are a simple and quick way to provide feedback to pull-requests or any comments. The thumb-down emoji should be used with care and if possible accompanied with some explanations so the submitter has directions to improve his contribution. +GitHub provides reactions, they are a simple and quick way to provide feedback to pull-requests or any comments. The thumb-down reaction should be used with care and if possible accompanied with some explanations so the submitter has directions to improve his contribution. Pull-requests reviews should include a list of what has been reviewed in a comment, so other reviewers and mergers can know the state of the review. @@ -35,7 +35,7 @@ Ensure that the commit text is fitting the guidelines. Ensure that the package maintainers are notified. - mention-bot usually notify github users based on the submitted changes, but it can happen that it misses some of the package maintainers. + mention-bot usually notify GitHub users based on the submitted changes, but it can happen that it misses some of the package maintainers. Ensure that the meta field contains correct information. @@ -52,8 +52,8 @@ $ git remote add channels https://github.com/NixOS/nixpkgs-channels.git $ git fetch channels nixos-unstable -$ git fetch origin pull/PRNUMBER/head:PRNUMBER -$ git rebase --onto nixos-unstable PRNUMBER +$ git fetch origin pull/PRNUMBER/head +$ git rebase --onto nixos-unstable BASEBRANCH FETCH_HEAD @@ -63,7 +63,7 @@ $ git rebase --onto nixos-unstable PRNUMBER Fetching the nixos-unstable branch. - Fetching the pull-request changes, PRNUMBER is the number at the end of the pull-request title. + Fetching the pull-request changes, PRNUMBER is the number at the end of the pull-request title and BASEBRANCH the base branch of the pull-request. Rebasing the pull-request changes to the nixos-unstable branch. @@ -124,7 +124,7 @@ $ nix-shell -p nox --run "nox-review -k pr PRNUMBER" Ensure the package source. Mirrors urls should be used when available. - The most appropriate function should be used (e.g. packages from github should use fetchFromGithub). + The most appropriate function should be used (e.g. packages from GitHub should use fetchFromGitHub). Building the package locally. @@ -170,7 +170,7 @@ $ nix-shell -p nox --run "nox-review -k pr PRNUMBER" Ensure that the module maintainers are notified. - Mention-bot notify github users based on the submitted changes, but it can happen that it miss some of the package maintainers. + Mention-bot notify GitHub users based on the submitted changes, but it can happen that it miss some of the package maintainers. Ensure that the module tests, if any, are succeeding. @@ -278,7 +278,13 @@ The main reviewers for a topic can be hard to find as there is no list, but chec TODO: add the procedure to request merging rights. + In a case a contributor leaves definitively the Nix community, he should create an issue or notify the mailing list with references of packages and modules he maintains so the maintainership can be taken over by other contributors.