From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from mp0 ([2001:41d0:2:4a6f::]) (using TLSv1.3 with cipher TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 (256/256 bits)) by ms0.migadu.com with LMTPS id sOMUJWTgbmF9MwAAgWs5BA (envelope-from ) for ; Tue, 19 Oct 2021 17:12:36 +0200 Received: from aspmx1.migadu.com ([2001:41d0:2:4a6f::]) (using TLSv1.3 with cipher TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 (256/256 bits)) by mp0 with LMTPS id UFK1IGTgbmGiGAAA1q6Kng (envelope-from ) for ; Tue, 19 Oct 2021 15:12:36 +0000 Received: from lists.gnu.org (lists.gnu.org [209.51.188.17]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by aspmx1.migadu.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 0E41F28EB7 for ; Tue, 19 Oct 2021 17:12:36 +0200 (CEST) Received: from localhost ([::1]:45058 helo=lists1p.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1mcqn5-0006Qp-4l for larch@yhetil.org; Tue, 19 Oct 2021 11:12:35 -0400 Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([2001:470:142:3::10]:39300) by lists.gnu.org with esmtps (TLS1.2:ECDHE_RSA_AES_256_GCM_SHA384:256) (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1mcq5H-0000Ec-9y for guix-devel@gnu.org; Tue, 19 Oct 2021 10:27:19 -0400 Received: from mail-wr1-x436.google.com ([2a00:1450:4864:20::436]:36612) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtps (TLS1.2:ECDHE_RSA_AES_128_GCM_SHA256:128) (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1mcq5F-0004AL-FH for guix-devel@gnu.org; Tue, 19 Oct 2021 10:27:18 -0400 Received: by mail-wr1-x436.google.com with SMTP id o20so48206520wro.3 for ; Tue, 19 Oct 2021 07:27:16 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20210112; h=from:to:cc:subject:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id :mime-version:content-transfer-encoding; bh=uEZOcyevTK9kQ4MDMskcXq3+B9143NDHbH/oARvdnGI=; b=Cuv5mfWZfAuDdfEKKRMH/MJ6z94k5DstW9hJU3COPcBzpOBqGy5vJOqLzCODJUg5El /SCRMG9V2D0hhjLsgJyhtoGHqU4hqYju0/GPXzGdd85IYEebgCuVx/xJpfEANegZnmtG ktyc+sxqkLJ4aOg0objG7uFzzcEAfpW0mwvE0B1uHnaYyQF5GqxVBrc3BQX1I3GW9UJA z1Vk0pLZpyS37/KEDB5qig5vHqYpuMj5GH74ydb1pyDLcwNfjIe3OvbhzyJ+2YY6dMpm JPVMbs/bCJKSS/f4yURG/qr9IlETdvgRSRjHwtw5Mjs4ogUlM84WtSJhaFhpVmthCXwy 0d7Q== X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20210112; h=x-gm-message-state:from:to:cc:subject:in-reply-to:references:date :message-id:mime-version:content-transfer-encoding; bh=uEZOcyevTK9kQ4MDMskcXq3+B9143NDHbH/oARvdnGI=; b=U7dPJyMzVgsuvfND7AVm2p7m6QJiJJ2ulmq3PX+bu5bYzsqP7iJPtzDQUw0iM/XEl4 WnCVpmAo+G1NBnTvRYE0lW9YS1Y1qoU024C+wGALxZfT1J0Od9klzdyhhiD8iX7rtjZG paTjWuAZz1BCyeMtCIMVGYf5nyrUkrQ3jSqgRAoDjiMjhYxbP/+HPO23WsP8yAILNMKX wEvHnpQWETJ1ATachahzQJOSByAANW21b3a/JqmwDXAEqNeJVEY+qoPgmkTVdth+Rqxu lKsneFMeqIxU5+3XDOX4KIANmaVmylPkXii8zNjgNPoyj7aSQ6yWFODNHshvJgQaKoeE UBEg== X-Gm-Message-State: AOAM532Rl4GC53wBtzAdI870X3B4sKnjdmuYdXlg/nNhjRO/tC7r4SZB 5DG6un1shn7oFqnKkXNJVS2KA/cc8/M= X-Google-Smtp-Source: ABdhPJy/sLM6D5GmMTvXmhDbljywlRelvrKv4BhicxE89+6Icw4wLAbJJxNvieetr/BWx1tZCqJ+Ug== X-Received: by 2002:adf:ab46:: with SMTP id r6mr44019126wrc.71.1634653635476; Tue, 19 Oct 2021 07:27:15 -0700 (PDT) Received: from lili ([2a01:e0a:59b:9120:65d2:2476:f637:db1e]) by smtp.gmail.com with ESMTPSA id v191sm2338061wme.36.2021.10.19.07.27.14 (version=TLS1_3 cipher=TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 bits=256/256); Tue, 19 Oct 2021 07:27:15 -0700 (PDT) From: zimoun To: Ludovic =?utf-8?Q?Court=C3=A8s?= Subject: Re: Tricking peer review In-Reply-To: <87sfwx896z.fsf@inria.fr> References: <874k9if7am.fsf@inria.fr> <86ee8hfm1k.fsf@gmail.com> <87sfwx896z.fsf@inria.fr> Date: Tue, 19 Oct 2021 16:22:30 +0200 Message-ID: <86k0i9drh5.fsf@gmail.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Received-SPF: pass client-ip=2a00:1450:4864:20::436; envelope-from=zimon.toutoune@gmail.com; helo=mail-wr1-x436.google.com X-Spam_score_int: -20 X-Spam_score: -2.1 X-Spam_bar: -- X-Spam_report: (-2.1 / 5.0 requ) BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_EF=-0.1, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001 autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no X-Spam_action: no action X-BeenThere: guix-devel@gnu.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.23 Precedence: list List-Id: "Development of GNU Guix and the GNU System distribution." List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Cc: guix-devel@gnu.org Errors-To: guix-devel-bounces+larch=yhetil.org@gnu.org Sender: "Guix-devel" X-Migadu-Flow: FLOW_IN ARC-Message-Signature: i=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=yhetil.org; s=key1; t=1634656356; h=from:from:sender:sender:reply-to:subject:subject:date:date: message-id:message-id:to:to:cc:cc:mime-version:mime-version: content-type:content-type: content-transfer-encoding:content-transfer-encoding: in-reply-to:in-reply-to:references:references:list-id:list-help: list-unsubscribe:list-subscribe:list-post:dkim-signature; bh=uEZOcyevTK9kQ4MDMskcXq3+B9143NDHbH/oARvdnGI=; b=gMoo3hIW3aNjcROqLe1HmmaoLIt1kJf6/pVKyI55/zlpjt8ciXiSiqg4i8KG4JSz0JsF+n ZxWkjfMcoAeJKcXxCt2v0ZowazLCMHLgrU0jOh37uErs/ZGubd4JfB/VREkYfGSgNToxOj rZcTFvgsSfz9sW3a5e8GItwv+KYh4aTyURhLrVi2CY/qoGmyJR78/8U4NphVGaAhvZVF+J lU/2aHb7w2tepUtviw2UMseVT4sWw4kAsm8Oirmngmxj/N96LH9oWbMTadRu+t5v+B0i+H pZg7lOAD7liOxbeQVh4YrD6yxJCW+ndgaafsMSwCUv7js8l72OU6qSc6xMJP6A== ARC-Seal: i=1; s=key1; d=yhetil.org; t=1634656356; a=rsa-sha256; cv=none; b=bTqV/WjfQpuH8n06TuIf7FCRHJpGVxUBXuwhH9IdJQKLU/yk4gA+AAY8M1rcjAG2HVynUL cTcdf/OWF5qgA904CK4+cWEyTD42YGxqkRY3WpWFmugA64wq18IpftvHyElvDFLpaycgwY mdsF6Wu3ObLup4FjICmAptbs/Ej6oPXmO/skFeAX2XGCuIZ0vIogcGQlwSEozujZ8trmFh 4qHmz8SNZVOsA57h04zD+zG6wXSyFoVTD4b4IpgSZK7MbS+NqSFiKcANhzU0j7orWpQ58e /fdwrtQB/V22CgJ2Rpj7N2CkKH1iq4Q7MKCAmSqEctM2HP3DQl52Y2w+6Gr8FA== ARC-Authentication-Results: i=1; aspmx1.migadu.com; dkim=pass header.d=gmail.com header.s=20210112 header.b=Cuv5mfWZ; dmarc=pass (policy=none) header.from=gmail.com; spf=pass (aspmx1.migadu.com: domain of guix-devel-bounces@gnu.org designates 209.51.188.17 as permitted sender) smtp.mailfrom=guix-devel-bounces@gnu.org X-Migadu-Spam-Score: -3.13 Authentication-Results: aspmx1.migadu.com; dkim=pass header.d=gmail.com header.s=20210112 header.b=Cuv5mfWZ; dmarc=pass (policy=none) header.from=gmail.com; spf=pass (aspmx1.migadu.com: domain of guix-devel-bounces@gnu.org designates 209.51.188.17 as permitted sender) smtp.mailfrom=guix-devel-bounces@gnu.org X-Migadu-Queue-Id: 0E41F28EB7 X-Spam-Score: -3.13 X-Migadu-Scanner: scn0.migadu.com X-TUID: /cyYkO+xOrru Hi Ludo, On Tue, 19 Oct 2021 at 14:56, Ludovic Court=C3=A8s wrote: > zimoun skribis: > >> I agree with a minor comment. From my opinion, not enough patches are >> going via guix-patches and are pushed directly. >> >> For instance, the =C2=ABCommit policy=C2=BB section says =C2=ABFor patch= es that just >> add a new package, and a simple one, it=E2=80=99s OK to commit, if you= =E2=80=99re >> confident (which means you successfully built it in a chroot setup, and >> have done a reasonable copyright and license auditing).=C2=BB >> >> And from my point of view, new packages should *always* go via >> guix-patches, wait 15 days, then push if no remark. It lets the time >> for the community to chime in. And if not, it just slows down for 2 >> weeks. > > Three comments: (1) two weeks for a trivial Python/R/C package (the > =E2=80=9Csimple one=E2=80=9D rule above) can be a lot, (2) committers are= by definition > trusted to not mess up and to clean up behind them, and (3) when a > simple package is pushed there=E2=80=99s after-the-fact peer review in pr= actice > (sometimes I reply to guix-commits notifications, for example.) While I agree for updates or various fixes, I disagree when adding new packages. I do not see what is so urgent, I mean, if it was so urgent, why the package had not been added before? Therefore, I disagree with (1) when adding new packages. About (2), yes I agree that committers are by definition trusted. No question here. However, (a) more eyes prevent mistakes and (b) some ramblings. One question is =E2=80=9Cencouragement=E2=80=9D for reviewing, somehow. As= king 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 =E2=80=9Cunfair=E2=80=9D. Why are committer=E2=80=99s trivial additions mo= re =E2=80=9Curgent=E2=80=9D than mine? I do not blame anyone, obviously not! I just comment here from my side the current process in order to improve it. About (3), if peer review before pushing can be used, how is a after-the-fact peer review a justification? Mistakes happen and I am fine with that. And hopefully they can be fixed. However, they remain forever in the Git history tree =E2=80=93 therefore, here we have avoidable =E2=80=9Ctragic=E2=80=9D commits. (This tricking peer review is a corollary of a more general rambling about review. :-)) > I think it=E2=80=99s about finding the right balance to be reasonably eff= icient > while not compromising on quality. I totally agree. And I do not see nor understand where is the inefficiency here when asking to go via guix-patches and wait two weeks for adding a new package. Could you provide one concrete example of an urgent trivial package addition? Cheers, simon