From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from mp2 ([2001:41d0:2:bcc0::]) (using TLSv1.3 with cipher TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 (256/256 bits)) by ms0.migadu.com with LMTPS id aMq9N9tiemHgywAAgWs5BA (envelope-from ) for ; Thu, 28 Oct 2021 10:44:11 +0200 Received: from aspmx1.migadu.com ([2001:41d0:2:bcc0::]) (using TLSv1.3 with cipher TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 (256/256 bits)) by mp2 with LMTPS id gKCIM9tiemH5DQAAB5/wlQ (envelope-from ) for ; Thu, 28 Oct 2021 08:44:11 +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 609FB2A29D for ; Thu, 28 Oct 2021 10:44:11 +0200 (CEST) Received: from localhost ([::1]:34110 helo=lists1p.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1mg118-0007Br-HJ for larch@yhetil.org; Thu, 28 Oct 2021 04:44:10 -0400 Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([2001:470:142:3::10]:35952) by lists.gnu.org with esmtps (TLS1.2:ECDHE_RSA_AES_256_GCM_SHA384:256) (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1mg10j-00079e-Eb for guix-devel@gnu.org; Thu, 28 Oct 2021 04:43:45 -0400 Received: from mail-wr1-x42f.google.com ([2a00:1450:4864:20::42f]:39836) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtps (TLS1.2:ECDHE_RSA_AES_128_GCM_SHA256:128) (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1mg10h-0004lF-3G; Thu, 28 Oct 2021 04:43:45 -0400 Received: by mail-wr1-x42f.google.com with SMTP id z14so8781643wrg.6; Thu, 28 Oct 2021 01:43:41 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20210112; h=from:to:subject:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id:mime-version :content-transfer-encoding; bh=qvkUwYlvCkR6WhC8zyOXEyrZFfoWiXetaTB2wU1o1ak=; b=XenOzpZSbpl5eIMGQ1THjgVpA4clEIB5SsIMH/hn+VksuOrxbbWJvrFliZU/biBHxw TXUlcxjEUj47Ox6ougPXOIFDSuKpZvnbk0UjxSKXUzzYuj1FL+2U0AfbS3EeLP6yR9Mw tynU2ShoLPD6JzomuUxsLR9U9u3SDwpG4qRSki3fC39NS9bsv9S2BaVQtIygcqpK6pzU I9nOm73fmrw3QuwoH8ZQy75yrYVMXhEN3oeDSlW94IhWK14khBEMMJe9ylSaxXA/JirW IsBKMPBQm8ePohCsUNbkZ7aE+4Ms83P74lUzof/+PQ6zW5c6gdOQ5WTKIqU3yjrN+KLp DW2A== X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20210112; h=x-gm-message-state:from:to:subject:in-reply-to:references:date :message-id:mime-version:content-transfer-encoding; bh=qvkUwYlvCkR6WhC8zyOXEyrZFfoWiXetaTB2wU1o1ak=; b=lTz5sysZxH7Fzp8cPxx/iGeCFbkE53Yk21Gpie4Ao+G1KCF0D25pQmJlTOHq0zEEby gx7Bd6OqHyjhsJLE2QezG1+ohkrr3biKvVtnoXy937uoRxwXu0pQX2/AsFh5fTgwbrjW QkKzBBBhtj5CoKLidl+X55IBa7ui7rCnYR8PtSVNL6Wj/e/lkeUuia6SmECoVWMEwaPJ UthAy5zWyvd2amMj4mZCppWiBGyjlTsqSiR4XqH0Rsyx4oKtQswG0PeOxqiBPrCDUJzf hzRVGJRnqv/GKM2XYUoUlFdZ3fymXMdn1LaYGpY9SNUptvZfgUyaqCKQQUIWUyfVIQNJ GWLg== X-Gm-Message-State: AOAM532tr+JjAUUAq3XTHdrj4s+z5/JlpHKh/pn3j9WPb72Pw917EBQ7 DDz64xMv7liS+x3gI/KDVIIEb7mOVeU= X-Google-Smtp-Source: ABdhPJwkl94av+9+lx88QgGlycHwaTQynA1fDNiRD1N3xOAaYk5mfB+wbMSgz6Yfy3E5sxCBxd9PlA== X-Received: by 2002:adf:ead0:: with SMTP id o16mr3916839wrn.271.1635410620696; Thu, 28 Oct 2021 01:43:40 -0700 (PDT) Received: from lili ([2a01:e0a:59b:9120:65d2:2476:f637:db1e]) by smtp.gmail.com with ESMTPSA id y6sm895157wrh.18.2021.10.28.01.43.40 (version=TLS1_3 cipher=TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 bits=256/256); Thu, 28 Oct 2021 01:43:40 -0700 (PDT) From: zimoun To: Ludovic =?utf-8?Q?Court=C3=A8s?= , Guix Devel Subject: Re: Time for a request-for-comments process? In-Reply-To: <87cznqb1sl.fsf@inria.fr> References: <87cznqb1sl.fsf@inria.fr> Date: Thu, 28 Oct 2021 10:42:02 +0200 Message-ID: <86lf2dee1x.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::42f; envelope-from=zimon.toutoune@gmail.com; helo=mail-wr1-x42f.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: , 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=1635410651; h=from:from:sender:sender:reply-to:subject:subject:date:date: message-id:message-id:to:to: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=qvkUwYlvCkR6WhC8zyOXEyrZFfoWiXetaTB2wU1o1ak=; b=RjNiaPO3r74sOK1V/6UFBSV7DO20qdkpfcLm/dGAU+SgVDlnbuxKbD/VFBTfS3k8gF59ZT frsghSpduFl+HWwq8J1T7nslMdDRcMmFCk0IiZJmMKVnYfl3mQenlUtkV7JOA2Db2M2URs dSA9VdxNMfixyLJNWLyq4pFZV0rFplhZt1JNNwFcTCGh/Ts2uxv4LVkfICkXatdrnCmj+5 Alxo9L11VoCgX5HTPa1ZDX5IwCwAizH2bYAgV5dWvoht7sfYK9581Q8NZq2iOk0nEZEs9G rYU4er7BJR3DHVthb1D0C3P0IIWResTpCZNlVFQx8kN688yKK4kuAQWovn9T8g== ARC-Seal: i=1; s=key1; d=yhetil.org; t=1635410651; a=rsa-sha256; cv=none; b=XhROO7g2DEcaVpyV3xOJ940+dwvnYiR9SzBb1S4ScuDEolSveWv5pFDK3X1wOwI0TPA4Lr bMp31CN04WRh0uLetN9vw2EWjovHd+9o54gSZN3/oSrbajuywSB41x4LK538IxqmQLhbp2 77+uqthAxVxpCioSrPs6+b6lE78zvYSROlzKj3NU8Amz4wRjBJl3BwNxPnziroIOd+ZTtQ 7X9TeeR+NLa4HD7+Wm+KInwpA3ioClVgimBsa7o2AesVgtxLJlbbW693b2uNngwogWY8fl bL9I31oTLWcoGKBwqyQP2MlOck258pA3C7lHriuv/meuZ5PQEOiC/SOGkr3ogw== ARC-Authentication-Results: i=1; aspmx1.migadu.com; dkim=pass header.d=gmail.com header.s=20210112 header.b=XenOzpZS; 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: -2.12 Authentication-Results: aspmx1.migadu.com; dkim=pass header.d=gmail.com header.s=20210112 header.b=XenOzpZS; 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: 609FB2A29D X-Spam-Score: -2.12 X-Migadu-Scanner: scn0.migadu.com X-TUID: dIONqWuw6j54 Hi Ludo, On Wed, 27 Oct 2021 at 23:22, Ludovic Court=C3=A8s wrote: > The recent =E2=80=98guix shell=E2=80=99 addition is almost anecdotal tech= nically yet > important for the project because users interact with Guix primarily > through the CLI. Adding a new command is a commitment (our users must > trust it won=E2=80=99t change overnight), and getting the details wrong c= ould > make us fail to honor that commitment. > > For =E2=80=98guix shell=E2=80=99 I left time for comments and repeatedly = asked people to > comment; yet pushing it was a bit stressful: Did I make a mistake? Did > everyone with a stake in this really have a chance to comment? Note that the patch received many comments; especially v1. Then, only two people commented for v2. And v3 did not receive any general LGTM =E2= =80=93 I sent one for the two trivial parts I reviewed. For me, one important root of the issue is the review process. I feel the balance described in thread =C2=ABIncentives for review=C2=BB [1], There=E2=80=99s 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 list=C2=B9. is hard to found. Because, on one hand, the project has to honor commitments, and on the other hand, no one as team is committed to do it. >From my understanding, your message here is interesting because somehow you did a similar experience as maintainer of what is an usual non-committer contributor experience; somehow explained by some of my soft ramblings from the thread =C2=ABIncentives for review=C2=BB [1]. :-) A= nother meaningful because similar, IMHO, failure of the review process is patch#45692 [4]. As you know, I did some stats in order to find, or at least discuss, how to improve the situation grounded on current facts. Aside, Debbugs already provides insightful numbers [2], especially this one [3]: The traffic on guix-patches is quite high and I do not know how many people subscribe =E2=80=93 I guess few. I hope the discussed improvements = of Mumi will help. Or perhaps if someone is willing to setup a Guix official public-inbox; for example, the instance https://yhetil.org/guix is providing helpful tools for easily filtering, IMHO. 1: 2: 3: 4: Closing parenthesis, back to your question. :-) > That makes me think it=E2=80=99s perhaps time for a formalized > request-for-comments (RFC) kind of process for such =E2=80=9Cmajor change= s=E2=80=9D. We > could draw inspiration from one of the many existing processes: Python=E2= =80=99s > PEPs, Scheme=E2=80=99s SRFIs, Nix=E2=80=99s RFCs, Rust=E2=80=99s MCPs, et= c. I think a major > goal of the process would be to formalize a minimum and a maximum > duration under which an RFC is under evaluation, and a mechanism to > determine whether it=E2=80=99s accepted or withdrawn. Aside the usual review process, at least my understanding what the review process should be, you are asking for a special flag then expose materials to various channels of communication, IIUC. For sure, it appears a good idea. :-) Concretely, what does it mean =E2=80=9Cmajor changes=E2=80=9D? How many of= these do you consider that happened in the recent two past years? For example, the recent label-less input style [5] is one instance, IMHO. However, I do not remember* if it was discussed outside guix-patches. In addition to the change itself sent to guix-patches with an associated number, it could be worth to send that information elsewhere. What would be this elsewhere? Create another dedicated (low-traffic) list would scatter the information and I am not convinced it would help to gain attraction at the moment. However, it would ease digging in the future because all would be in only one archive. Maybe info-guix could be used. But it would mean that everybody would be allowed to this list, when currently the messages landing there are somehow =E2=80=9Chighly filtered=E2=80=9D. However, an announce there poin= ting where and how to comment could be something helping to get more attention. Adding a section under Contributing about the process too. Last, the core question is formalization. Formalize the process (min, max duration, expectations of evaluation, mechanism to accept or withdraw, i.e., how to revolve different points of views, etc.) strongly depends on what =E2=80=9Cmajor changes=E2=80=9D means and how often that ha= ppens. Could you provide examples of such =E2=80=9Cmajor changes=E2=80=9D? It would hel= p for drawing a sketch of such formalization grounded on concrete examples. Cheers, simon 5: *remember discussion: Personally, I receive all emails to all lists. All in my Inbox. Thus, the channel does not mind for my workflow. :-) However, dealing with Guix traffic is a daily task =E2=80=93 if I am off fo= r a couple of days or holidays or busy by day job, then I skip some based on dates or interest. My trick to deal with such traffic is =E2=80=9Cjust=E2= =80=9D to quickly be able to determine if it is worth, for my interests, to jump into the details. If it requires less than 10min to answer, then I do it (obviously, it always take more time than expected :-)), else if I am interested in, I mark the email to revisit it later =E2=80=93 coupled with Org-capture and scheduled TODO tasks. On the top of that, I use a =E2=80=9Cstructured procrastination=E2=80=9D approach: do what I am interes= ted in at the moment, not what it is important or urgent.