[nixpkgs-committers]

This is an automated PR to retire @ttuegel as a Nixpkgs committer because they have not used their commit access since 2026-05-07.

@ttuegel: You can make a comment stating why you believe your commit access should be kept. Otherwise, this PR will be merged and implemented after 2026-12-09.

Note

Commit access is not required for most forms of contributing, including being a maintainer and reviewing PRs. It is only needed for things that require write permissions to Nixpkgs, such as merging PRs.

[nixos-discourse]

This pull request has been mentioned on NixOS Discourse. There might be relevant details there:

https://discourse.nixos.org/t/inactivity-cutoff-for-retirement-from-nixpkgs-commit-bit-moving-to-6mo/80697/2

[leona-ya]

@drupol may I ask why you approved this PR? I've never seen a review on a retirement PR, so I'm curious what you want to express with it

[wolfgangwalther]

may I ask why you approved this PR?

Possibly related:

• maintainers: drop ttuegel nixpkgs#454605
• maintainers: drop ttuegel nixpkgs#520887

I'd say the approval is just supposed to mean "unlikely to respond to this, because they did not respond to their maintainer removal either".

[drupol]

Heya all,

Very surprised to not have received a Github notification for @leona-ya's reply, just got one for @wolfgangwalther. I have no clue why, anyway replying here for both messages:

@wolfgangwalther Yes, it is related to that indeed. Thanks for linking the URLs.

@leona-ya : May I ask in return what you find unusual about approving a PR ? Especially considering that retirement PRs are a relatively recent addition, I am not sure there is much of an established convention around reviewing them (yet ?). As for my approval, I have tried to interact with the person concerned on several occasions, unfortunately without ever receiving any feedback, even on Mastodon.

I believe that communication and collaboration are fundamental to a healthy open-source project. Based on my personal experience, this hasn't been the case here, which is why I see this PR as a positive step.

That is simply what my approval expresses, and I hope this is clear now.

[leona-ya]

First of all thank you for your answer, that clarifies it – that will also be my last (planned) one here, as it's quite offtopic for here ;)

May I ask in return what you find unusual about approving a PR

As I understand this: This PR is an automatic one just based on the time someone didn't merge anything. It gets merged by default and not because people 'like' it.

The only thing I could read out of an approval of this is PR "I agree that the user is not merging things right now or not active in another sense". This doesn't seem to provide any benefit for the committers team, hence I was confused.
I thought of other things like "Cooperation wasn't good", "Is not active anymore", .... But I wanted some clarification.

I think it would have been helpful to write a few words with the approval to understand the motivation