unofficial mirror of guix-devel@gnu.org 
 help / color / mirror / code / Atom feed
From: Thiago Jung Bauermann <bauermann@kolabnow.com>
To: zimoun <zimon.toutoune@gmail.com>,
	guix-devel@gnu.org, "Ludovic Courtès" <ludo@gnu.org>
Subject: Re: Incentives for review
Date: Wed, 20 Oct 2021 18:37:06 -0300	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <2525618.Ivme1NzmDS@popigai> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <87mtn56mzg.fsf_-_@inria.fr>

Hello,

Em terça-feira, 19 de outubro de 2021, às 12:41:23 -03, Ludovic Courtès 
escreveu:
> zimoun <zimon.toutoune@gmail.com> skribis:
> > On Tue, 19 Oct 2021 at 14:56, Ludovic Courtès 
<ludovic.courtes@inria.fr> wrote:
> [...]
> 
> I would like to see us committers do more review work.  But I also view
> things from a different angle: everyone contributes in their own way,
> and each contribution is a gift.  We can insist on community
> expectations (reviewing other people’s work), but we should also welcome
> contributions as they come.

Thank you for viewing it from that angle. On a personal note, I’m aware 
that my ratio of patches reviewed / patches posted approaches zero and this 
makes me a bit uncomfortable every time I type `git send-email`.

Sometimes I try to review patches, but it’s not a very productive endeavour 
for a few reasons:

1. In many cases, I don’t see anything wrong with the patch I’m looking at. 
In those cases I could reply saying so, but I refrain from doing that 
because if such message comes from someone who doesn’t have much experience 
in the part of Guix that the patch touches (which is almost always the case 
for me when reviewing patches), then how much values does that really add?

2. Going through the guix-patches mailing list looking for submissions that 
touch the few areas of Guix where I have at least some experience. I don’t 
think I found an effective method yet (in part the problem is on my side 
because the search function of the email client I use isn’t very reliable).

> There’s a balance to be found between no formal commitment on behalf of
> committers, and a strict and codified commitment similar to what is
> required for participation in the distros list¹.
> 
> A good middle ground may be to provide incentives for review.  How?  I’m
> not sure exactly, but first by making it clear that review is makes the
> project move forward and is invaluable.  You once proposed having
> ‘Reviewed-By’ tags to acknowledge non-committer reviews, and I think
> that would be one step in that direction.

I like the ‘Reviewed-by’ idea and I agree that it provides a tangible 
incentive. A ‘Tested-by:’ tag would have the same effect as well, as 
suggested by simon.

> Perhaps there are other things we could do?

One thing that would help me would be some way to “subscribe” to changes in 
certain areas of Guix. That way, when a patch is submitted which touches 
those areas I would be automatically copied on the emails that go to the 
guix-patches mailing list. “areas of Guix” could be defined by paths in the 
repo, guile modules or regexps matching package names, for example.

-- 
Thanks,
Thiago




  parent reply	other threads:[~2021-10-20 21:37 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 63+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
2021-10-15 18:54 Tricking peer review Ludovic Courtès
2021-10-15 22:03 ` Liliana Marie Prikler
2021-10-15 22:28   ` Ryan Prior
2021-10-15 22:45     ` Liliana Marie Prikler
2021-10-15 22:59       ` Ryan Prior
2021-10-18  7:40     ` Ludovic Courtès
2021-10-18 19:56       ` Ryan Prior
2021-10-19  8:39       ` zimoun
2021-10-20 23:03         ` Leo Famulari
2021-10-21  8:14           ` zimoun
2021-10-15 23:13   ` Thiago Jung Bauermann
2021-10-18  7:47     ` Ludovic Courtès
2021-10-18  7:34   ` Ludovic Courtès
2021-10-19  8:36 ` zimoun
2021-10-19 12:56   ` Ludovic Courtès
2021-10-19 14:22     ` zimoun
2021-10-19 15:41       ` Incentives for review Ludovic Courtès
2021-10-19 16:56         ` zimoun
2021-10-19 19:14         ` Ricardo Wurmus
2021-10-19 19:34           ` Christine Lemmer-Webber
2021-10-19 19:50           ` Joshua Branson
2021-10-21 20:03           ` Ludovic Courtès
2021-10-20 21:37         ` Thiago Jung Bauermann [this message]
2021-10-21 13:38           ` Artem Chernyak
2021-10-22 20:03             ` Thiago Jung Bauermann
2021-10-23  1:43               ` Kyle Meyer
2021-10-23  3:42                 ` Thiago Jung Bauermann
2021-10-23  7:37                 ` zimoun
2021-10-23 16:18                   ` public-inbox/elfeed -> Maildir bridge (was: Incentives for review) Kyle Meyer
2021-10-24 12:18                   ` Jonathan McHugh
2021-10-21 16:06           ` Incentives for review Ricardo Wurmus
2021-10-21 16:32             ` zimoun
2021-10-22 20:06             ` Thiago Jung Bauermann
2021-10-21 15:07         ` Katherine Cox-Buday
2021-10-21 16:10           ` Ricardo Wurmus
2021-10-21 17:52             ` Katherine Cox-Buday
2021-10-21 18:21             ` Arun Isaac
2021-10-21 19:58               ` Ludovic Courtès
2021-10-21 21:42               ` Ricardo Wurmus
2021-10-22 10:48                 ` Arun Isaac
2021-10-22 11:21                   ` zimoun
2021-10-23  6:09                     ` Arun Isaac
2021-10-22 10:56                 ` Jonathan McHugh
2021-10-22  7:40               ` zimoun
2021-10-22 11:09                 ` Arun Isaac
2021-10-22  8:37               ` Jonathan McHugh
2021-10-22  9:15                 ` zimoun
2021-10-22 10:40                 ` Jonathan McHugh
2021-10-22 11:32                   ` zimoun
2021-10-21 21:18             ` Jonathan McHugh
2021-10-22 10:44               ` Arun Isaac
2021-10-22 11:06               ` Jonathan McHugh
2021-10-21 21:22           ` zimoun
2021-10-28 14:57             ` Katherine Cox-Buday
2021-10-21 17:51         ` Vagrant Cascadian
2021-10-24 11:47           ` Efraim Flashner
2021-10-20  8:22   ` Tricking peer review Giovanni Biscuolo
2021-10-20  9:10     ` zimoun
2021-10-20  8:29   ` patches for new packages proper workflow (Re: Tricking peer review) Giovanni Biscuolo
2021-10-20 23:09 ` Tricking peer review Leo Famulari
2021-10-21  7:12   ` Ludovic Courtès
2021-10-25 13:09 ` Christine Lemmer-Webber
2021-10-28  8:38   ` Ludovic Courtès

Reply instructions:

You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:

* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
  and reply-to-all from there: mbox

  Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style

  List information: https://guix.gnu.org/

* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
  switches of git-send-email(1):

  git send-email \
    --in-reply-to=2525618.Ivme1NzmDS@popigai \
    --to=bauermann@kolabnow.com \
    --cc=guix-devel@gnu.org \
    --cc=ludo@gnu.org \
    --cc=zimon.toutoune@gmail.com \
    /path/to/YOUR_REPLY

  https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html

* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
  via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line before the message body.
Code repositories for project(s) associated with this public inbox

	https://git.savannah.gnu.org/cgit/guix.git

This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox;
as well as URLs for read-only IMAP folder(s) and NNTP newsgroup(s).