From: Efraim Flashner <efraim@flashner.co.il>
To: Vagrant Cascadian <vagrant@debian.org>
Cc: guix-devel@gnu.org
Subject: Re: Incentives for review
Date: Sun, 24 Oct 2021 14:47:42 +0300 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <YXVH3vLG/W+VpA3Y@3900XT> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <875ytqp8qc.fsf@yucca>
[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 3621 bytes --]
On Thu, Oct 21, 2021 at 10:51:07AM -0700, Vagrant Cascadian wrote:
> On 2021-10-19, Ludovic Courtès wrote:
> > zimoun <zimon.toutoune@gmail.com> skribis:
> >
> >> On Tue, 19 Oct 2021 at 14:56, Ludovic Courtès <ludovic.courtes@inria.fr> wrote:
>
> >> One question is “encouragement” for reviewing, somehow. Asking for new
> >> package additions to go via guix-patches is a call making kind of
> >> equality between contributors. As someone without commit access, I can
> >> tell you that it is often demotivating to send a trivial addition, wait
> >> forever, ping people (aside I know who I have to ping :-)). Usually, it
> >> means people are busy elsewhere, so I try to help to reduce the workload
> >> by reviewing stuff or by doing bug triage. However, in the same time, I
> >> see committers push their own trivial additions. It appears to me
> >> “unfair”.
> >
> > I understand and sympathize (I also see us slipping off-topic :-)).
> >
> >> Why are committer’s trivial additions more “urgent” than mine?
> >
> > Yeah, I see what you mean.
> >
> > 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.
>
> I must admit, I don't review patches unless they're in an area of
> expertise (e.g. u-boot, arm-trusted-firmware, reproducible builds
> tooling, etc.); I just don't have sufficient skill with guile to review
> arbitrary packages in a meaningful way, other than the most trivial of
> packages...
>
> Before I was granted commit access, I *really* appreciated getting
> review... but was also frustrated by how long it took to get a
> contribution in; having limited time available for guix, spending that
> energy checking if something I'd already "finished" was actually merged
> was a bit demotivating.
>
> I have added a small number of trivial packages without review; maybe I
> shouldn't have... but it was also a bit of a sigh of relief once I could
> push directly to no have to get caught up in the waiting game; I had
> more time to actually contribute other improvements to guix.
>
>
> > 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.
>
> So yeah, it is a quite balancing act!
>
>
> Would a workflow of pushing to a "wip-pending" branch in guix.git that
> then gets merged and/or cherry-picked into master/staging/core-updates
> help at all?
>
> A cursory review could commit to "wip-pending", with the
> plan/hope/expectation that it would get some other review and/or a
> timeout before it gets merged.
>
> I guess it would be hard to avoid having to constantly rebase with the
> latest updates... "wip-pending" might just add more work to an already
> needs-more-resources process...
>
>
> live well,
> vagrant
There is cbaines' guix-patches service (and other things), where you can
add the git remote https://git.guix-patches.cbaines.net/git/guix-patches
and then cherry-pick commits from there to the necessary branch. I
haven't used it much though.
--
Efraim Flashner <efraim@flashner.co.il> רנשלפ םירפא
GPG key = A28B F40C 3E55 1372 662D 14F7 41AA E7DC CA3D 8351
Confidentiality cannot be guaranteed on emails sent or received unencrypted
[-- Attachment #2: signature.asc --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 833 bytes --]
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2021-10-24 11:51 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
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 [this message]
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=YXVH3vLG/W+VpA3Y@3900XT \
--to=efraim@flashner.co.il \
--cc=guix-devel@gnu.org \
--cc=vagrant@debian.org \
/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).