3 ms·

> Nope, your time isn't valuable because there are too many of you and just one nix. This ... seems entirely reasonable, though? As you point out, having to d

> Nope, your time isn't valuable because there are too many of you and just one nix. This ... seems entirely reasonable, though? As you point out, having to do extra work on behalf of others isn't desirable. -- If a pull request is made and the maintainer(s) don't like it, the options are "reject it", "maintainer puts in extra work to accept it", "pull request author puts in extra work to get it accepted". With as many open PRs to nixpkgs as there are, it seems reasonable to ask that pull requests are as streamlined as possible. That this isn't a great experience for new (or infrequent) contributors is unfortunate; although, "contributing" was raised as a pain point in the last community survey. https://discourse.nixos.org/t/2022-nix-survey-results/18983 https://discourse.nixos.org/t/2022-nix-survey-results/18983

pshirshov 4y ago
> This ... seems entirely reasonable, though? Yeah. It's better to spend more time repeating "read the guidelines" instead of fixing the commit message. And of course it's better to keep critically vulnerable packages (netatalk, potential remote code execution) for months and piss off the maintainer (not me) instead of turning on the autosquash.
- viraptor 4y ago
  This may be annoying, but it makes sense at scale. If you learn the rules, you'll do it right the next time. If I fix commits, I'll handle a fraction of the PRs I could otherwise - and submitters will learn that anything goes (And I am still fixing the most trivial issues) For security issues, mentioning cve gives the pr a security tag which helps speed thing up.
  - pshirshov 4y ago
    I'm not a full-time nixpkgs developer being paid for that. I'm willing to make occasional contributions but won't if it costs me too much. If it's cheaper to maintain a private fork I would do exactly that.
    - viraptor 4y ago
      That's the thing though - almost nobody is. Neither are the people merging the PRs, and while there's significantly fewer committers than contributors, the current setup just makes sense at scale. I'm not saying it's a good end result, just the most efficient at the time.

pshirshov 4y ago

> This ... seems entirely reasonable, though? Yeah. It's better to spend more time repeating "read the guidelines" instead of fixing the commit message. And of course it's better to keep critically vulnerable packages (netatalk, potential remote code execution) for months and piss off the maintainer (not me) instead of turning on the autosquash.

viraptor 4y ago
This may be annoying, but it makes sense at scale. If you learn the rules, you'll do it right the next time. If I fix commits, I'll handle a fraction of the PRs I could otherwise - and submitters will learn that anything goes (And I am still fixing the most trivial issues) For security issues, mentioning cve gives the pr a security tag which helps speed thing up.
- pshirshov 4y ago
  I'm not a full-time nixpkgs developer being paid for that. I'm willing to make occasional contributions but won't if it costs me too much. If it's cheaper to maintain a private fork I would do exactly that.
  - viraptor 4y ago
    That's the thing though - almost nobody is. Neither are the people merging the PRs, and while there's significantly fewer committers than contributors, the current setup just makes sense at scale. I'm not saying it's a good end result, just the most efficient at the time.