From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from mp1.migadu.com ([2001:41d0:403:58f0::]) (using TLSv1.3 with cipher TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 (256/256 bits)) by ms8.migadu.com with LMTPS id IPejMKIcwWUpbQAA62LTzQ:P1 (envelope-from ) for ; Mon, 05 Feb 2024 18:36:34 +0100 Received: from aspmx1.migadu.com ([2001:41d0:403:58f0::]) (using TLSv1.3 with cipher TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 (256/256 bits)) by mp1.migadu.com with LMTPS id IPejMKIcwWUpbQAA62LTzQ (envelope-from ) for ; Mon, 05 Feb 2024 18:36:34 +0100 X-Envelope-To: larch@yhetil.org Authentication-Results: aspmx1.migadu.com; dkim=pass header.d=lassieur.org header.s=fm2 header.b=XJTHaRy5; dkim=pass header.d=messagingengine.com header.s=fm3 header.b=IbplzrZW; spf=pass (aspmx1.migadu.com: domain of "guix-devel-bounces+larch=yhetil.org@gnu.org" designates 209.51.188.17 as permitted sender) smtp.mailfrom="guix-devel-bounces+larch=yhetil.org@gnu.org"; dmarc=none ARC-Message-Signature: i=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=yhetil.org; s=key1; t=1707154594; 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:in-reply-to:in-reply-to: references:references:list-id:list-help:list-unsubscribe: list-subscribe:list-post:dkim-signature; bh=tlGc9f5I92tw8yi6L03rxvQM21kAe3nNT7T0k7CRSng=; b=go4M82YouYGaOV2mJOtwS4yRFe2a3iLV3hdU8SGVWlby9gCN6kLv0aAKk7yFJaiIq+5F0e 7A2eoGOJzp0OmF0zKkTDF2Qqi94ISAHXs9S+Hwo/XlWZWW7XwPHHYbGjG1bbJ8z0Lcf5+G UesMtBWMUMo4PLk5wgAbGqD8uY6jWnknQ2dCqVmMAIacXeKABGHwlEjdnJ6uZV7doeIciw AhVgDvwcewtvOGpLyVahOfvYFbu4czcz7OyXTmaXCvIaNWUQPMueQd+cTBw+2WGX+0C4o0 9a1smoVT5TW4fxOXiDU/H2QTJFNjXevO7f2mpFp7TnxuzusPaD1a2ved26KGKQ== ARC-Authentication-Results: i=1; aspmx1.migadu.com; dkim=pass header.d=lassieur.org header.s=fm2 header.b=XJTHaRy5; dkim=pass header.d=messagingengine.com header.s=fm3 header.b=IbplzrZW; spf=pass (aspmx1.migadu.com: domain of "guix-devel-bounces+larch=yhetil.org@gnu.org" designates 209.51.188.17 as permitted sender) smtp.mailfrom="guix-devel-bounces+larch=yhetil.org@gnu.org"; dmarc=none ARC-Seal: i=1; s=key1; d=yhetil.org; t=1707154594; a=rsa-sha256; cv=none; b=m/NulNru1zN6ewJoYC43kaZRZ94qRf0HlvSqao+mrWURGj4WO/JNs7xCg5zTq5gOP8R3YM 8wAMQESweG9ckPLkJNt3KX4jd+mpgKLC3CEJWFcSmtqt4N/zt7eSRE6oXZZroFN8vq9HBI b38/NEOJahIBEMWxBbLr9qGatuqoADDxyNreRudU71I1XpAe4fUnT4GlxrCwgAkfqMpfwp K1L7LKGaLp8uDBnvLtSlqy3TRPPvaGbWGJbEmZV3G5cYcCvKCjOy9Ve8+M7SfEKcLUlVSi dCGEdkzs89+Cu+W9i8iiiXvbqp5D4hRK2LcH1pfQ/4IeL7QEl8hpU9rca1+ylA== 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 AD9E739948 for ; Mon, 5 Feb 2024 18:36:34 +0100 (CET) Received: from localhost ([::1] helo=lists1p.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1rX2tB-0006Il-G9; Mon, 05 Feb 2024 12:36:13 -0500 Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([2001:470:142:3::10]) by lists.gnu.org with esmtps (TLS1.2:ECDHE_RSA_AES_256_GCM_SHA384:256) (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1rX2t8-0006IZ-J2 for guix-devel@gnu.org; Mon, 05 Feb 2024 12:36:10 -0500 Received: from out4-smtp.messagingengine.com ([66.111.4.28]) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtps (TLS1.2:ECDHE_RSA_AES_256_GCM_SHA384:256) (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1rX2t6-00083R-4x for guix-devel@gnu.org; Mon, 05 Feb 2024 12:36:10 -0500 Received: from compute7.internal (compute7.nyi.internal [10.202.2.48]) by mailout.nyi.internal (Postfix) with ESMTP id F06565C00B4; Mon, 5 Feb 2024 12:36:06 -0500 (EST) Received: from mailfrontend2 ([10.202.2.163]) by compute7.internal (MEProxy); Mon, 05 Feb 2024 12:36:06 -0500 DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=lassieur.org; h= cc:cc:content-type:content-type:date:date:from:from:in-reply-to :in-reply-to:message-id:mime-version:references:reply-to:subject :subject:to:to; s=fm2; t=1707154566; x=1707240966; bh=tlGc9f5I92 tw8yi6L03rxvQM21kAe3nNT7T0k7CRSng=; b=XJTHaRy5/X8DdOREde+plSsIVE VXlW0kfDy878j6+1hGvtHw2rZJrvXZktjof6/W6MxsZWMHC0Ol8qrYo2ecF7K4M4 nj7yiOte2N9nMFS94FYEIJ2mb/G0Hvs+zLHE3MI2gyoMimfOgt0vV935/U8uV117 DIzhZr56Qq32VtOwr6Z7LIsId0B4RgmhljZqsc+FR5bAGjqN9AGoafsZNuIVEGFA cPSk8asvP3zMr6Ij9rjii7nzWl9jBWNJTPAEJFfRGES5mMxrpdO0LGiEcgy3m8+p 9YLUfJ4qkTAcabXVfUPJ0CoiezQk9P+BTHrP4f1vbchhdQ4JANW9j5PsQ/dQ== DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d= messagingengine.com; h=cc:cc:content-type:content-type:date:date :feedback-id:feedback-id:from:from:in-reply-to:in-reply-to :message-id:mime-version:references:reply-to:subject:subject:to :to:x-me-proxy:x-me-proxy:x-me-sender:x-me-sender:x-sasl-enc; s= fm3; t=1707154566; x=1707240966; bh=tlGc9f5I92tw8yi6L03rxvQM21kA e3nNT7T0k7CRSng=; b=IbplzrZW8NwQqvOK1ALsXCpWWfDZ5F0f+FUqL7sO065m 0fPz59g25GMSNDR1WwKLzoZYw6W6I2D39wpk3YI/BN7Bs9XtVW+47xIbK5iOAsv3 3yuXQud3+c2qBP+hNmEIURTtabGPlSuYHmzwg3Hjf83gi1xVB5+66j2UM/b4uWnp xSaujfBsmfBt+oMHU8It847RnfvKZyKU4HDvLdryZ42Yeeyg3q7XEbIuQ4TZm6mD p++8+LihVLJiHGbNezspj1gMWZOc9pC0o0v+fWfpr8ZfklHFMkR0QWJl9dYdYE4p L1VQTk4UFWtIH72vO77AhNOu3lNVu9IUKr0OcApARg== X-ME-Sender: X-ME-Received: X-ME-Proxy-Cause: gggruggvucftvghtrhhoucdtuddrgedvkedrfedvuddguddtucetufdoteggodetrfdotf fvucfrrhhofhhilhgvmecuhfgrshhtofgrihhlpdfqfgfvpdfurfetoffkrfgpnffqhgen uceurghilhhouhhtmecufedttdenucesvcftvggtihhpihgvnhhtshculddquddttddmne cujfgurhephffvvefujghffffkfgggtgesthdtredttderjeenucfhrhhomhepvehlrohm vghnthcunfgrshhsihgvuhhruceotghlvghmvghntheslhgrshhsihgvuhhrrdhorhhgqe enucggtffrrghtthgvrhhnpeevjeeljefhledthedukeejhfekuefglefgtddvudetveel jeekudevtdfhtdfgffenucevlhhushhtvghrufhiiigvpedtnecurfgrrhgrmhepmhgrih hlfhhrohhmpegtlhgvmhgvnhhtsehlrghsshhivghurhdrohhrgh X-ME-Proxy: Feedback-ID: i4c21472a:Fastmail Received: by mail.messagingengine.com (Postfix) with ESMTPA; Mon, 5 Feb 2024 12:36:05 -0500 (EST) From: =?utf-8?Q?Cl=C3=A9ment_Lassieur?= To: Suhail Cc: Tomas Volf <~@wolfsden.cz>, Leo Famulari , Steve George , guix-devel@gnu.org Subject: Re: Guix Days: Patch flow discussion In-Reply-To: <34679.2393991322$1707153777@news.gmane.org> (suhail@bayesians.ca's message of "Mon, 05 Feb 2024 17:21:38 +0000") References: <34679.2393991322$1707153777@news.gmane.org> Date: Mon, 05 Feb 2024 18:36:03 +0100 Message-ID: <87eddq95ks.fsf@lassieur.org> User-Agent: Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain Received-SPF: pass client-ip=66.111.4.28; envelope-from=clement@lassieur.org; helo=out4-smtp.messagingengine.com X-Spam_score_int: -27 X-Spam_score: -2.8 X-Spam_bar: -- X-Spam_report: (-2.8 / 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, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-0.7, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H3=0.001, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_WL=0.001, SPF_HELO_PASS=-0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, T_SCC_BODY_TEXT_LINE=-0.01 autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no X-Spam_action: no action X-BeenThere: guix-devel@gnu.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29 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-bounces+larch=yhetil.org@gnu.org X-Migadu-Flow: FLOW_IN X-Migadu-Country: US X-Migadu-Spam-Score: -10.36 X-Migadu-Queue-Id: AD9E739948 X-Spam-Score: -10.36 X-Migadu-Scanner: mx11.migadu.com X-TUID: npxTsJai8IHf On Mon, Feb 05 2024, Suhail wrote: > Tomas Volf <~@wolfsden.cz> writes: > >> In ideal world, there would always be *some* reaction from the >> project, even if that reaction would be "we do not want this change". > > Agreed. A reduction in the time between a patch (or patch revision) > submission and a review/reaction would be a positive change in my > opinion. > >> Even if it would be just an auto-close (for the "contributor can't >> work effectively..." case). > > Are there current instances of "contributor can't work effectively"? If > not, I propose that decisions concerning those situations be deferred > till we have actual instances to guide us. > >> Or, to put it in a different way: The problem is not that too few patches get >> merged. The problem is that too few patches get reviewed. > > Agreed. > > I believe the below steps would help with the current situation, and > perhaps both should be pursued (among possibly others). > > 1. It would help to eliminate the need for review in certain kinds of > patches. Some version upgrades for a package $foo where there exists > no package $bar that depends on $foo may fall in this category. More > generally, some "known to be safe with reasonable confidence" changes > may be safe to be auto-committed without needing manual review. I think "auto-commit" is a bit too much, but tagging a patch as "can be pushed" could make it easy for committers to find them and push them. > Recognizing such changes could be challenging, but we don't have to > correctly label all such changes in order for this to be helpful. > > 2. It would help if it were easier for the community to be able to identify the next > steps, given a patch submission. It might help to (more?) clearly > differentiate between the below states: > - patch *needs review* (automatically set) > - patch *needs revision* (set explicitly by the reviewer, say, by > using a specific keyword in their email) > - patch *needs followup review* (automatically set if there's a > revised patch) > - patch has a *satisfied reviewer* (set explicitly by the reviewer, > say, by using a specific keyword in their email) +1 Ideally with debbugs tags. (Patches that don't need review should be tagged as well.)