Skip to content
New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

nixos/version: validate system.stateVersion #81135

Open
wants to merge 1 commit into
base: master
Choose a base branch
from

Conversation

tilpner
Copy link
Member

@tilpner tilpner commented Feb 26, 2020

Motivation for this change

Stripped down #80907 to validate only.

Things done

Correctly invalid (on branch nixos-20.03):

  • "19", "19.3"
  • "unstable", "nixos-unstable", "nixos.unstable"
  • "19.04"

Questionably invalid (on branch nixos-20.03):

  • "20.09": future value, not used yet, but there might still be reason for setting this

Correctly valid:

  • "19.03"
  • "16.09"

Incorrectly valid:

  • "xy.03"
Open questions
  • Is this the right place to encode how NixOS versions look like?
  • Should future NixOS versions be valid?

Copy link
Member

@rycee rycee left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

I think this is fine but perhaps it would be more elegant if this could be made into the type of stateVersion? Something like (the entirely untested)

type =
  let
    notNewerThanNixpkgs = versionAtLeast cfg.release;
  in
    types.addCheck
      (types.strMatching "[[:digit:]]{2}\\.(03|09)")
      notNewerThanNixpkgs
    // {
      name = "nixosVersion";
      description = "NixOS release version";
    };

Edit: I have no particular opinion whether future versions should be allowed. But it does feel quite unsafe to set stateVersion to a future version which may introduce changes that will affect you.

@stale
Copy link

stale bot commented Sep 4, 2020

Hello, I'm a bot and I thank you in the name of the community for your contributions.

Nixpkgs is a busy repository, and unfortunately sometimes PRs get left behind for too long. Nevertheless, we'd like to help committers reach the PRs that are still important. This PR has had no activity for 180 days, and so I marked it as stale, but you can rest assured it will never be closed by a non-human.

If this is still important to you and you'd like to remove the stale label, we ask that you leave a comment. Your comment can be as simple as "still important to me". But there's a bit more you can do:

If you received an approval by an unprivileged maintainer and you are just waiting for a merge, you can @ mention someone with merge permissions and ask them to help. You might be able to find someone relevant by using Git blame on the relevant files, or via GitHub's web interface. You can see if someone's a member of the nixpkgs-committers team, by hovering with the mouse over their username on the web interface, or by searching them directly on the list.

If your PR wasn't reviewed at all, it might help to find someone who's perhaps a user of the package or module you are changing, or alternatively, ask once more for a review by the maintainer of the package/module this is about. If you don't know any, you can use Git blame on the relevant files, or GitHub's web interface to find someone who touched the relevant files in the past.

If your PR has had reviews and nevertheless got stale, make sure you've responded to all of the reviewer's requests / questions. Usually when PR authors show responsibility and dedication, reviewers (privileged or not) show dedication as well. If you've pushed a change, it's possible the reviewer wasn't notified about your push via email, so you can always officially request them for a review, or just @ mention them and say you've addressed their comments.

Lastly, you can always ask for help at our Discourse Forum, or more specifically, at this thread or at #nixos' IRC channel.

@stale stale bot added the 2.status: stale https://github.com/NixOS/nixpkgs/blob/master/.github/STALE-BOT.md label Sep 4, 2020
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

None yet

2 participants