From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: ludo@gnu.org (Ludovic =?utf-8?Q?Court=C3=A8s?=) Subject: Debbugs handling of packages Date: Wed, 08 Feb 2017 14:46:35 +0100 Message-ID: <87r338pzgk.fsf_-_@gnu.org> References: <20170206190923.GA3592@mail.thebird.nl> <87shnplrjh.fsf@elephly.net> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Return-path: Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([2001:4830:134:3::10]:38777) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1cbSa1-0003w8-J7 for guix-devel@gnu.org; Wed, 08 Feb 2017 08:46:43 -0500 Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1cbSZy-00015g-Hb for guix-devel@gnu.org; Wed, 08 Feb 2017 08:46:41 -0500 In-Reply-To: <87shnplrjh.fsf@elephly.net> (Ricardo Wurmus's message of "Tue, 07 Feb 2017 20:38:58 +0100") 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+gcggd-guix-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Sender: "Guix-devel" To: Ricardo Wurmus Cc: guix-devel@gnu.org Hello Guix! Ricardo Wurmus skribis: > I see two possible outcomes of establishing an additional =E2=80=9Cincuba= tor=E2=80=9D > repository: it might fragment our review community as some people will > try to upstream incubator patches and others handle mailing list > patches; another outcome is that the incubator never gets accepted by > reviewers and mentors because it is more work, leading to growing > parallel infrastructure and second-class code. Neither of these > outcomes is desirable in my opinion. Yeah, I share the same concerns. The example of external repos that you gave seems to confirm this. But like Pjotr said, if people want to have their own package set somewhere else, that=E2=80=99s also fine. We=E2=80=99ll just work hard to = make sure there=E2=80=99s no real incentive to do that. :-) > Our workflow involving the mailing list is far from perfect. We had > further discussions over post-FOSDEM dinner and drinks and there seemed > to be consensus among the people present (including long time > contributors, reviewers, and successful mentors) that it would be a > great improvement to keep track of package contributions in a separate > Debbugs instance (e.g. one =E2=80=9Cbug=E2=80=9D per package submission).= It gives us a > way to track the state of things more easily, it accomodates people who > prefer to use a web browser, it permits us to continue to use email, and > it doesn=E2=80=99t force yet another account onto submitters. > > Admittedly, the web interface that Debbugs comes with is kinda bland and > hard to use, so a second step would be to develop a better UI frontend > to Debbugs that would be closer to what people expect from an issue > tracker. > > This was discussed before at > > and we could request a separate Debbugs instance for > =E2=80=9Cguix-packages@gnu.org=E2=80=9D *right now* if we wanted to. > > What do other people think about this? I think we should just go ahead and setup that Debbugs instance like I said I=E2=80=99d do back in September. It can only be an improvement over = what we have now anyway. Objections? Thanks, Ludo=E2=80=99.