| Commit message (Collapse) | Author | Age |
|---|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
| |
We found that many users found it difficult to locate this document.
Github supports it in the root, see:
https://docs.github.com/en/communities/setting-up-your-project-for-healthy-contributions/setting-guidelines-for-repository-contributors
|
| |
|
|
| |
Also delete empty release notes file.
|
| | |
|
| | |
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
Remove elements of the PR template that have a low signal/noise ratio,
and add one that I think would have a good signal/noise ratio.
-----
Remove:
Determined the impact on package closure size (by running `nix path-info
-S` before and after)
-----
Rationale:
This is rarely done in practice, and apart from for specific packages
this is usually not a good indicator of anything useful
It might make sense to re-introduce it with two holes to fill, but then
we would have to make a serious decision to never land without these two
numbers filled in or with too big a regression, because in practice this
box has been a no-op in many cases.
Maybe just integrating this check in nixpkgs-review would bring the most
benefit here?
-----
-----
Remove:
Ensured that relevant documentation is up to date
-----
Rationale:
This is fuzzy, “relevant documentation” is way too often hard to find
-----
-----
Add:
Added a release notes entry if the change is major or breaking
-----
Rationale:
This is way too often forgotten, and is also a self-contained easy task
-----
|
| | |
|
| |
|
|
|
| |
tarballs.nixos.org is omitted from the change because urls from there
are always hashed and checked
|
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
The text is quite long and hard to read in hub (because it is one whole line
with no line breaks). Also simplified the language/sentence structure a bit for
non-native speakers.
|
| | |
|
| |
|
|
| |
changelog: https://github.com/Mic92/nixpkgs-review/releases/tag/2.1.1
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
Per https://github.com/NixOS/nixpkgs/pull/58147#issuecomment-478234495
sandboxing is not fully functional on macOS.
.github: specify where sandboxing can be run
Co-Authored-By: Jon <jonringer@users.noreply.github.com>
.github: remove macOS note
|
| | |
|
| | |
|
| | |
|
| |\
| |
| | |
PULL_REQUEST_TEMPLATE: Add encouragement to review PRs
|
| | | |
|
| |/
|
|
|
| |
It is faster, handles more edge cases and allows to test/review the built
packages interactively.
|
| | |
|
| | |
|
| | |
|
| | |
|
| | |
|
| | |
|
| | |
|
| | |
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
On several occasions I've seen people bumping packages which have NixOS
tests but without actually running them.
While this probably won't prevent such occasions entirely, at least it
serves as an additional checklist item so contributors don't forget
about these tests.
Signed-off-by: aszlig <aszlig@redmoonstudios.org>
|
| |
|
| |
Follow the rebranding of OS X into macOS
|
| |
|
| |
See https://github.com/NixOS/nix/commit/b39622a487e2978bd32c9faf2f651aec1f9815c1
|
| |
|
|
|
| |
The old one works on all nix(os) versions, whereas the new one doesn't
work e.g. on default 16.03 setting. Discussed on #15112.
|
| |
|
| |
I'm seeing a lot of PRs that only include the checklist, when the main thing I care about when I'm reviewing a PR is what the author was thinking when they decided to make the change.
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
| |
It's been reported that when running through nix daemon,
sandboxing can't be turned on by passing `--option` (silently ignored),
so let's not suggest that way.
https://github.com/NixOS/nixpkgs/issues/14866#issuecomment-214619909
|
| |
|
|
|
| |
On Nix side this was done months ago:
https://github.com/NixOS/nix/pull/682
|
| |
|
|
|
| |
* Highlight the top mistakes directly in CONTRIBUTING.md
* Remove unecessary cruft from the PR template
|
| | |
|
| | |
|
| | |
|
| |
|