Please do remember to do your review as a GitHub review (Files changed → Review changes). That has several advantages:
the PR will no longer show up in the filtered view I link from the top post
it is easier to understand the reasoning later
you will get subscribed to the PR in case there will be future discussion
as a little bonus there is a gamification aspect: it will be possible to generate statistics who reviewed how many PRs
This post is only to get someone to act on the review. It should be enough to just post “merge: <link>” or you could copy your review here. But it should not only be here, especially if these posts are deleted.
Regarding your second review: Please only post clear-cut reviews here. Your review is of course helpful and you could open a discussion in the PR and maybe ask for advice on IRC or a separate discourse post. But this post should be reserved for cases where the committer only has to “review a review”, not make a decision themselves or be particularly familiar with the particular packages.
Please don’t read the remarks in any negative way, I’m glad you started with the reviews This is just the first step in refining the process.
I don’t know enough about node to say this is good, but I have reviewed the module and everything there looks good. If someone would like to review the package that would be appreciated: https://github.com/NixOS/nixpkgs/pull/58096
@NRHelmi please review the list of requirements for PRs to post here. I understand that you’re probably frustrated, especially since your first contribution has been sitting there for 3 months. You’re encouraged to
ping someone you think might be qualified/interested to review in the PR. Infinisil has already reviewed it once and may be willing to give it another look if you remind him
ask for a review on IRC or on discourse. Maybe start another iteration of “PRs ready for review”
Those PRs both have merge conflicts, so are not ready to merge. They are also from nixpkgs members, so posting them here is not necessary (they can merge themselves after you’ve given a positive review).
If someone can validate or propose a comment for this pr?
It fixes a bug that prevents to use diskImageFuns.debian9x86_64 and thus generate debian9 debs for example. The workaround is to use the debian8 image for the moment.
Reasoning: The description of #52424 mentions that it obsoletes #37353, and the most recent comment in #52424 says the contributor is currently testing an additional proposed change.
