RFC 0001 has been merged! The repo still needs to be moved to the NixOS org but we're getting there :)
To keep the ball rolling, let me know if you want to try drafting a RFC. The whole process is probably still a bit rough and we need to get a couple of RFCs trough the process to make it better. Cheers, z On Thu, 9 Mar 2017 at 17:44 Rok Garbas <r...@garbas.si> wrote: > I haven't read the latest changes in the RFC, but I welcome any more > formal process for major changes. > > Thank you @zimbatm for pursuing this. > > > > On 09 March 2017 at 13:09 Tomasz Czyż <tomasz.c...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > Thanks! Great stuff! > > > > 2017-03-08 21:21 GMT+00:00 zimbatm <zimb...@zimbatm.com>: > > > > > The RFC for RFCs is ready for a final round of review. Unless there are > > > major objections I would like to move forward with it, with the idea > that > > > we can always improve the process with further RFCs. > > > > > > https://github.com/zimbatm/rfcs/pull/1 > > > > > > On Sun, 12 Feb 2017 at 20:17 Maarten Hoogendoorn <maar...@moretea.nl> > > > wrote: > > > > > >> Also see the notes that Arian took during the BoF session at FOSDEM: > > >> > > >> We had a very spontaneous NixOS discussion panel at FOSDEM. > > >> > > >> I took minutes. I must say they're a bit rushy at times, so add > stuff to > > >> it > > >> you think isn't clear or is lacking in content. Thanks! > > >> > > >> > > >> http://piratepad.net/1nHg65LMQj > > >> > > >> > > >> 2017-02-12 19:46 GMT+01:00 Thomas Hunger <tehun...@gmail.com>: > > >> > > >> That would be amazing! I actually have an email sitting in my draft > > >> folder proposing Nix Enhancement Proposals (NEPs). > > >> > > >> IMHO one of the things we aren't very good at is getting larger > changes > > >> merged or rejected. We attract a lot of smart people because Nix is > pretty > > >> awesome. These smart people then do substantial work, submit a PR and > the > > >> PR bitrots. This is highly demotivating. > > >> > > >> An RFC process would allow us to get to an accept / reject early on, > with > > >> the expectation that accepted RFCs will be merged when the technical > work > > >> is done. > > >> > > >> I'll add more specific comments to your PR. > > >> > > >> ~ > > >> > > >> On 12 February 2017 at 15:12, zimbatm <zimb...@zimbatm.com> wrote: > > >> > > >> Hi all, > > >> > > >> we discussed of introducing a RFC process during FOSDEM. The goal is > to > > >> help discussion for large or controversial changes which typically > grind to > > >> a halt. > > >> > > >> Here is an initial proposal based on the one from the Rust community: > > >> https://github.com/zimbatm/rfcs/pull/1 . Please let me know what you > > >> think. > > >> > > >> Cheers, > > >> z > > >> > > >> _______________________________________________ > > >> nix-dev mailing list > > >> nix-dev@lists.science.uu.nl > > >> http://lists.science.uu.nl/mailman/listinfo/nix-dev > > >> > > >> > > >> > > >> _______________________________________________ > > >> nix-dev mailing list > > >> nix-dev@lists.science.uu.nl > > >> http://lists.science.uu.nl/mailman/listinfo/nix-dev > > >> > > >> > > >> > > > _______________________________________________ > > > nix-dev mailing list > > > nix-dev@lists.science.uu.nl > > > http://lists.science.uu.nl/mailman/listinfo/nix-dev > > > > > > > > > > > > -- > > Tomasz Czyż > > _______________________________________________ > > nix-dev mailing list > > nix-dev@lists.science.uu.nl > > http://lists.science.uu.nl/mailman/listinfo/nix-dev > > -- Rok Garbas, https://garbas.si >
_______________________________________________ nix-dev mailing list nix-dev@lists.science.uu.nl http://lists.science.uu.nl/mailman/listinfo/nix-dev
