This improves URL previews like the ones on Discourse, where currently
the boilerplate comment is printed for every PR link instead of parts of
the motivation.
There are a lot of PRs for updates that don't make it easy to find
out what changes might be breaking and lots of PRs for new packages
that don't describe what the new packages is or does.
1) Building with the sandbox enabled is the standard on Linux,
so it is of little relevance with distribution they are using.
Because of this, we now specify "Linux" instead of "NixOS",
and the sandbox checkbox specifies "non-Linux".
2) aarch64 is a much more common platform, so we add two separate
checkboxes for both aarch64-linux and aarch64-darwin.
3) The platform names now match what is actually used by Nix.
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
-----
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.
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>
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.
Martin Weinelt