2d0210472a
John has been part of every meeting since the beginning. He took on a lot of work on behalf of the team, and provided useful suggestions in discussions, advocating for stability, reasonable design decisions, and maintainable code. He was in general highly productive within the team process, and repeatedly helped us to keep focus on our stated goals. Specifically, early on he suggested to gather more experience with the team reviews in order derive our values for the project encode a more structured approach to guiding contributions, which is slowly bearing fruit these days. John is already the contributor with the most code changes to date (only topped by principal author Eelco), and is well-known to be highly knowledgeable about both high-level design and low-level internals of the code base. He has continued to offer high quality work during the team's operation, which resulted in many pull requests getting merged that further the team's goals. It is due time for John to be come an official team member and be granted merge access that he will surely exercise with the great care he is known for. |
||
|---|---|---|
| .. | ||
| README.md | ||
| upload-release.pl | ||
Nix maintainers team
Motivation
The goal of the team is to help other people to contribute to Nix.
Members
- Eelco Dolstra (@edolstra) – Team lead
- Théophane Hufschmitt (@thufschmitt)
- Valentin Gagarin (@fricklerhandwerk)
- Thomas Bereknyei (@tomberek)
- Robert Hensing (@roberth)
- John Ericson (@Ericson2314)
Meeting protocol
The team meets twice a week:
-
Discussion meeting: Fridays 13:00-14:00 CET
- Triage issues and pull requests from the No Status column (30 min)
- Discuss issues and pull requests from the To discuss column (30 min)
-
Work meeting: Mondays 13:00-15:00 CET
- Code review on pull requests from In review.
- Other chores and tasks.
Meeting notes are collected on a collaborative scratchpad, and published on Discourse under the Nix category.
Project board protocol
The team uses a GitHub project board for tracking its work.
Issues on the board progress through the following states:
-
No Status
Team members can add pull requests or issues to discuss or review together.
During the discussion meeting, the team triages new items. If there is disagreement on the general idea behind an issue or pull request, it is moved to To discuss, otherwise to In review.
-
To discuss
Pull requests and issues that are important and controversial are discussed by the team during discussion meetings.
This may be where the merit of the change itself or the implementation strategy is contested by a team member.
-
In review
Pull requests in this column are reviewed together during work meetings. This is both for spreading implementation knowledge and for establishing common values in code reviews.
When the overall direction is agreed upon, even when further changes are required, the pull request is assigned to one team member.
-
Assigned for merging
One team member is assigned to each of these pull requests. They will communicate with the authors, and make the final approval once all remaining issues are addressed.
If more substantive issues arise, the assignee can move the pull request back to To discuss to involve the team again.
The process is illustrated in the following diagram:
flowchart TD
discuss[To discuss]
review[To review]
New --> |Disagreement on idea| discuss
New & discuss --> |Consensus on idea| review
review --> |Consensus on implementation| Assigned
Assigned --> |Implementation issues arise| review
Assigned --> |Remaining issues fixed| Merged