(fill me in with a unique ident, my_awesome_feature)
(fill me in with today's date, YYYY-MM-DD)
(name of the main author)
(find a buddy later to help out with the RFC)
(names, to be nominated and accepted by RFC steering committee)
(name to be appointed by RFC steering committee)
(will contain links to implementation PRs)
Summary
This policy outlines a method for dealing with derivations that occasionally fail to build. These derivations delay channel updates and cause noise when testing changes. Additionally for users who build packages themselves they require manual action to restart the build process. Fixing this will make maintaining and using nixpkgs more pleasurable.
Motivation
Why are we doing this? What use cases does it support? What is the expected outcome?
Detailed design
This is the core, normative part of the RFC. Explain the design in enough detail for somebody familiar with the ecosystem to understand, and implement. This should get into specifics and corner-cases. Yet, this section should also be terse, avoiding redundancy even at the cost of clarity.
Examples and Interactions
This section illustrates the detailed design. This section should clarify all confusion the reader has from the previous sections. It is especially important to counterbalance the desired terseness of the detailed design; if you feel your detailed design is rudely short, consider making this section longer instead.
Drawbacks
Why should we not do this?
Alternatives
What other designs have been considered? What is the impact of not doing this?
Unresolved questions
What parts of the design are still TBD or unknowns?
Future work
What future work, if any, would be implied or impacted by this feature without being directly part of the work?
Summary
Motivation
Detailed design
Examples and Interactions
Drawbacks
Alternatives
Unresolved questions
Future work