nordic-dev.net/nixpkgs
nordic-dev.net/nixpkgs
2
0
Fork 0
mirror of https://github.com/NixOS/nixpkgs.git synced 2024-10-30 14:11:21 +00:00
Code Issues Packages Projects Releases Wiki Activity

Merge pull request #263575 from pbsds/contributing-link-naming-conventino

Browse Source 
CONTRIBUTING: Add hotlinks to package and module reviewing guides, minor touchups
This commit is contained in:
Silvan Mosberger 2023-11-13 14:01:33 +01:00 committed by GitHub
commit fdee770336
No known key found for this signature in database
GPG Key ID: 4AEE18F83AFDEB23
3 changed files with 25 additions and 20 deletions
Show Stats Download Patch File Download Diff File Expand all files Collapse all files

2
CONTRIBUTING.md
View File

@ -465,7 +465,7 @@ Is the change [acceptable for releases][release-acceptable] and do you wish to h
- No: Use the `master` branch, do not backport the pull request.
- Yes: Can the change be implemented the same way on the `master` and release branches?
For example, a packages major version might differ between the `master` and release branches, such that separate security patches are required.
- Yes: Use the `master` branch and [backport the pull request](#backporting-changes).
- Yes: Use the `master` branch and [backport the pull request](#how-to-backport-pull-requests).
- No: Create separate pull requests to the `master` and `release-XX.YY` branches.
Furthermore, if the change causes a [mass rebuild][mass-rebuild], use the appropriate staging branch instead:

13
nixos/README.md
View File

@ -21,12 +21,14 @@ Reviewing process:
- Ensure that the module maintainers are notified.
- [CODEOWNERS](https://help.github.com/articles/about-codeowners/) will make GitHub notify users based on the submitted changes, but it can happen that it misses some of the package maintainers.
- Ensure that the module tests, if any, are succeeding.
- You may invoke OfBorg with `@ofborg test <module>` to build `nixosTests.<module>`
- Ensure that the introduced options are correct.
- Type should be appropriate (string related types differs in their merging capabilities, `loaOf` and `string` types are deprecated).
- Description, default and example should be provided.
- Ensure that option changes are backward compatible.
- `mkRenamedOptionModuleWith` provides a way to make option changes backward compatible.
- Ensure that removed options are declared with `mkRemovedOptionModule`
- `mkRenamedOptionModuleWith` provides a way to make renamed option backward compatible.
- Use `lib.versionAtLeast config.system.stateVersion "23.11"` on backward incompatible changes which may corrupt, change or update the state stored on existing setups.
- 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.
@ -55,6 +57,7 @@ New modules submissions introduce a new module to NixOS.
Reviewing process:
- Ensure that all file paths [fit the guidelines](../CONTRIBUTING.md#file-naming-and-organisation).
- 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, `loaOf` and `string` types are deprecated).
@ -76,9 +79,9 @@ Sample template for a new module review is provided below.
- [ ] options have default
- [ ] options have example
- [ ] options have descriptions
- [ ] No unneeded package is added to environment.systemPackages
- [ ] meta.maintainers is set
- [ ] module documentation is declared in meta.doc
- [ ] No unneeded package is added to `environment.systemPackages`
- [ ] `meta.maintainers` is set
- [ ] module documentation is declared in `meta.doc`
##### Possible improvements

30
pkgs/README.md
View File

@ -696,16 +696,16 @@ It can happen that non-trivial updates include patches or more complex changes.
Reviewing process:
- Ensure that the package versioning fits the guidelines.
- Ensure that the commit text fits the guidelines.
- Ensure that the package versioning [fits the guidelines](#versioning).
- Ensure that the commit text [fits the guidelines](../CONTRIBUTING.md#commit-conventions).
- Ensure that the package maintainers are notified.
- [CODEOWNERS](https://help.github.com/articles/about-codeowners) will make GitHub notify users based on the submitted changes, but it can happen that it misses some of the package maintainers.
- Ensure that the meta field information is correct.
- Ensure that the meta field information [fits the guidelines](#meta-attributes) and is correct:
- License can change with version updates, so it should be checked to match the 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.
- Ensure that the code contains no typos.
- Building the package locally.
- pull requests are often targeted to the master or staging branch, and building the pull request locally when it is submitted can trigger many source builds.
- Build the package locally.
- Pull requests are often targeted to the master or staging branch, and building the pull request locally when it is submitted can trigger many source builds.
- 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.
```ShellSession
@ -722,7 +722,7 @@ Reviewing process:
```ShellSession
$ nix-shell -p nixpkgs-review --run "nixpkgs-review pr PRNUMBER"
```
- Running every binary.
- Run every binary.
Sample template for a package update review is provided below.
@ -731,7 +731,7 @@ Sample template for a package update review is provided below.
- [ ] package name fits guidelines
- [ ] package version fits guidelines
- [ ] package build on ARCHITECTURE
- [ ] package builds on ARCHITECTURE
- [ ] executables tested on ARCHITECTURE
- [ ] all depending packages build
- [ ] patches have a comment describing either the upstream URL or a reason why the patch wasn't upstreamed
@ -748,18 +748,20 @@ New packages are a common type of pull requests. These pull requests consists in
Review process:
- Ensure that the package versioning fits the guidelines.
- Ensure that the commit name fits the guidelines.
- Ensure that the meta fields contain correct information.
- Ensure that all file paths [fit the guidelines](../CONTRIBUTING.md#file-naming-and-organisation).
- Ensure that the package name and version [fits the guidelines](#package-naming).
- Ensure that the package versioning [fits the guidelines](#versioning).
- Ensure that the commit text [fits the guidelines](../CONTRIBUTING.md#commit-conventions).
- Ensure that the meta fields [fits the guidelines](#meta-attributes) and contain the correct information:
- License must match the upstream license.
- Platforms should be set (or the package will not get binary substitutes).
- Maintainers must be set. This can be the package submitter or a community member that accepts taking up maintainership of the package.
- Report detected typos.
- Ensure the package source:
- Uses mirror URLs when available.
- Uses `mirror://` URLs when available.
- Uses the most appropriate functions (e.g. packages from GitHub should use `fetchFromGitHub`).
- Building the package locally.
- Running every binary.
- Build the package locally.
- Run every binary.
Sample template for a new package review is provided below.
@ -769,7 +771,7 @@ Sample template for a new package review is provided below.
- [ ] package path fits guidelines
- [ ] package name fits guidelines
- [ ] package version fits guidelines
- [ ] package build on ARCHITECTURE
- [ ] package builds on ARCHITECTURE
- [ ] executables tested on ARCHITECTURE
- [ ] `meta.description` is set and fits guidelines
- [ ] `meta.license` fits upstream license