-
-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 42
New issue
Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.
By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.
Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account
Future of the repository #129
Comments
I'm okay with all of it but I'm not the owner. @gromakovsky ? |
@Lucus16 thanks for pingining me.
It shouldn't be a big deal, so I've just done that (provided
Sounds good to me. What does it entail? Changing the version in
I personally don't mind, but let me discuss it internally first. I hope to get back to you soon.
Yep, I would like to have someone from existing employees of our company in that team, but that's another thing for me to discuss internally first. If we decide to do it, we will probably want to review #118 before it gets merged. |
Btw, I didn't read the whole discussion in NixOS/rfcs#101 because it's too big, but in
Do I understand correctly that you have changed your mind since then? |
@gromakovsky Indeed, we intend to close that RFC and open a new one once ready. We're working on the new RFC draft here for now, which is much more up-to-date |
Any updates on this? |
Yes, we can transfer the repository, but please describe how you envision this process. AFAIU the plan is to eventually move it to https://github.com/nixos, but it's hard to predict when it will happen. Do you want it to be transferred to another organization as an intermediate step?
We'd like to have @Sereja313 in the team to be aware of what's going on, participate in discussions and coding. According to NixOS/rfcs#101, I see that you have meetings from time to time. Is it possible to invite sergey.gulin@serokell.io and roman.melnikov@serokell.io to the next one? |
Oh that might be a good idea. In fact we just created https://github.com/nix-rfc-101/ as a temporary organization for the new RFC, but we could maybe discuss using it also as the temporary place for the nixfmt repository. I sent Email invites to the bi-weekly meetings, next one is 2023-09-26 21:00 CEST. If the time doesn't work, let me know so we can find a better one. We also use this Matrix room for asynchronous communication. |
For reference, the meeting notes for the discussion are here, notably quoting:
In anticipating of the RFC succeeding, I've also picked up some maintenance of nixfmt and did the nixfmt-0.6.0 release two couple weeks ago together with Sergey and @piegamesde. |
RFC has been merged, this can be cloned, see #153 for further updates :) |
This issue has been mentioned on NixOS Discourse. There might be relevant details there: https://discourse.nixos.org/t/enforcing-nix-formatting-in-nixpkgs/49506/3 |
As you might already know, we, the RFC 101 (Nix formatting) shepherd team, are intending to choose the nixfmt code base to implement the standard Nix formatting, including Nixpkgs (see #118). This decision is unlikely to change, even should the RFC pivot to a radically different output format — the nixfmt code base has proven to be very flexible in this regard.
The current plan of the RFC is to eventually put the chosen formatter repository into the
NixOS
GitHub organization, and to continue maintaining it by a newly founded Formatter team. The team is not fixed yet, but will probably consist of people already involved in the RFC, e.g. current and alumni shepherds. Of course you would be welcome in that team too, if you want.The big question here is, would you agree to slowly transfer this repository to us for this goal? The alternative would be to fork nixfmt for the purpose of this RFC. To which extent that fork then would have to be "harder" or "softer", is not clear yet. But the main benefit of reusing the repository is the ability to keep the issue tracker intact.
In more detail, we propose the following actions:
nixfmt_unstable
attribute is added to Nixpkgs, allowing people to try out the RFC's format and give feedback in the issue tracker.Signed by:
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: