3 ms·
> 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
by 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 agoThis 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 agoI'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 agoThat'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.