From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from mp11.migadu.com ([2001:41d0:2:4a6f::]) (using TLSv1.3 with cipher TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 (256/256 bits)) by ms5.migadu.com with LMTPS id +JpqBzYT9WM00wAAbAwnHQ (envelope-from ) for ; Tue, 21 Feb 2023 19:53:42 +0100 Received: from aspmx1.migadu.com ([2001:41d0:2:4a6f::]) (using TLSv1.3 with cipher TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 (256/256 bits)) by mp11.migadu.com with LMTPS id wIDfBzYT9WP1DwEA9RJhRA (envelope-from ) for ; Tue, 21 Feb 2023 19:53:42 +0100 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 EC4022A042 for ; Tue, 21 Feb 2023 19:53:41 +0100 (CET) Received: from localhost ([::1] helo=lists1p.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1pUXlF-0004yI-RE; Tue, 21 Feb 2023 13:53:09 -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 1pUXlD-0004rI-DC for guix-devel@gnu.org; Tue, 21 Feb 2023 13:53:07 -0500 Received: from cascadia.aikidev.net ([2600:3c01:e000:267:0:a171:de7:c]) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtps (TLS1.2:ECDHE_RSA_AES_256_GCM_SHA384:256) (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1pUXlA-0008Jn-TJ for guix-devel@gnu.org; Tue, 21 Feb 2023 13:53:07 -0500 Received: from localhost (unknown [IPv6:2600:3c01:e000:21:7:77:0:40]) (Authenticated sender: vagrant@cascadia.debian.net) by cascadia.aikidev.net (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 5B9F21AB7F; Tue, 21 Feb 2023 10:52:58 -0800 (PST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=debian.org; s=1.vagrant.user; t=1677005578; bh=OtzQ7OKDU0nuNr3ssnurG+mtSxYigj3RUCKHV/oVnWI=; h=From:To:Subject:In-Reply-To:References:Date:From; b=lkk+AtOFgD5UyBhm2zmqwP2x0lrj4WzEuiQ0nu18YunXSN9iNzFNkCzE3I9J7cUkz ZGvBURrBPGig+pQ0EHYd1/yR1ROPsKo2PAgbOj5Bw6Er3OuoItTHS1oJ1HQrWo3sl5 lSgKR678dDec/T2DSplEtry8MJUnB+SRy74Nez95RojuFqeNgmm1wU7oXkI6fD7jiR xyCY3u/f/E3M0kgXufXfTVXnEHGbzURypXUbezmWbUljh/4PfubXLsEycM+K9FrzMb wLjUejhcMpxUM2MP/vUTxfgbRGvd+1F6ctbIvkqC+O7RSfgB7TCGcj/B8XPEUMa+OO TaQi1yJ7D+Smg== From: Vagrant Cascadian To: Christopher Baines , guix-devel@gnu.org Subject: Re: Thoughts on committers pushing simple changes from other committers? In-Reply-To: <87y1ordv5p.fsf@cbaines.net> References: <87y1ordv5p.fsf@cbaines.net> Date: Tue, 21 Feb 2023 10:52:54 -0800 Message-ID: <87v8juq29l.fsf@yucca> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/signed; boundary="=-=-="; micalg=pgp-sha512; protocol="application/pgp-signature" Received-SPF: none client-ip=2600:3c01:e000:267:0:a171:de7:c; envelope-from=vagrant@debian.org; helo=cascadia.aikidev.net 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, DKIMWL_WL_HIGH=-0.001, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_EF=-0.1, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_NONE=0.001 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 ARC-Authentication-Results: i=1; aspmx1.migadu.com; dkim=pass header.d=debian.org header.s=1.vagrant.user header.b=lkk+AtOF; 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=1677005622; a=rsa-sha256; cv=none; b=QBCoROGnJm6DK1mm3W1fPad1iTdYp2OZuGGxyCp+mPavArQ1s41RlVi0jO8bjF5Cv0n/Jt QspaoyU8t/RsGMSibnWT+boeBZAw4cgffzP4YEZlZ9p3urjDpVkQb1gxLjVQslasHgAdCw AN6DmMJusrdpK8hq/gXFfZEfGoH4qhnAzgNpqapKown+9Nq+j7gQzx7MM4OyULmv8EY5td SnCaZK46aVM+0Y1+2B4E7rTapUaOhD4dYPKhDhEWDkHIr+vYWpDFji3jhyIGrPPMVkozNq 48kJk8NgHmIZH5DvfyLJK4YqWMx5JvB49BXEcY5cnU4r6Vi1qeIsxkzxlaylZg== ARC-Message-Signature: i=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=yhetil.org; s=key1; t=1677005622; 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:in-reply-to:in-reply-to: references:references:list-id:list-help:list-unsubscribe: list-subscribe:list-post:dkim-signature; bh=k3x8L7ylxQ/r6nv9PeWByR6lPv2NyK1s1G3Mx6o+YHg=; b=KyuwDhXA/C912PxU/pn0tNFWkCEwstfhkN3wCLYrNVtKriqsrMiKx7GQ/vCbxGqFLKrTEZ DeHS0Y8ZVuKSv9luBOZtcQ6GFtwSLriVnYPmKErIPauEFkEhVu2SgdVxwWXb4WoV+c/X+4 TR98i+PKs9e3XG52rhQqi9+oecBB/GElcuM3tHQ08s0sMYQU9kTo8XOvkdEnoeuH/xRBuZ JMa/zVfoi9SdGdl7zPm6KasagDqZUg5gnno2WrdG6r8IcpYyopRA5kt8aPtWBmgVqKzF7q fR/SBK5xyCFojfYd86P0VHVVLfLm4GTXDjvQ9xcz8O4GIVCApUld1XxsHTvGGQ== X-Migadu-Queue-Id: EC4022A042 Authentication-Results: aspmx1.migadu.com; dkim=pass header.d=debian.org header.s=1.vagrant.user header.b=lkk+AtOF; 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 X-Migadu-Spam-Score: -8.57 X-Migadu-Scanner: scn1.migadu.com X-Spam-Score: -8.57 X-TUID: 6VcZwaq7nagH --=-=-= Content-Type: text/plain On 2023-02-21, Christopher Baines wrote: > So probably in part due to the recent changes to the commit policy [1] I > think there are more "simple" changes being sent to guix-patches by > committers, which I think is good, but that's got me thinking about the > process for these changes. > > 1: https://git.savannah.gnu.org/cgit/guix.git/commit/?id=9aa2b7419854306b7ae78d4c4f7684316b834b1d > > Generally, I don't push changes for other committers, but I wonder if > that would be helpful now. As someone who submitted a patch a few weeks ago: https://issues.guix.gnu.org/60940 ...which was very recently ACKed, I would definitely welcome someone pushing it! There is also no sign like "this has been reviewed by N people" better than one person authoring it and another person pushing and signing it, with some Reviewed-by or other relevent tags in the commit. For some patches (60940 took a few months of on-again, off-again work, testing, and poking at it), by the time it lands as a submitted patch, I might be a little tired of staring at it. :) Even with a quick (e.g. a couple days) response to a submitted patch, I likely have moved onto other things, it may not be fresh in my mind, the right things may not be in my /gnu/store anymore to quickly re-test it, it may take a bit to apply the patch on the right branch... In this particular case, not only has my attention shifted to other things for a while (e.g. Debian freeze cycle and things entirely outside of computer realms) ... to top it off the machine I tested the changes on ceased to exist! A lot can happen in a few days, or weeks, etc. Obviously, for someone else to push a "my" patch, they may have to go through a lot of the same sorts of issues... but if they have freshly reviewed it, maybe they are more in a state of "working on guix" and it might be less of a context switch? Or maybe not... I guess one way might be to be more explicit about intentions and access when submitting or reviewing patches: "Reviews definitely appreciated, but please let me push it myself when it is ready." "On reviewing this patch, it looks good to me, but I cannot push it myself right now. Push when you can or maybe another committer can do it." "Thanks for the patch, I will push in X days unless you beat me to it!" "Reviewers, if you like this patch, go ahead and push it, as I do not have commit access." "I am so *done* with this patch, any reviewers please consider pushing directly if you think it is ready!" Just a few ideas, could maybe formalize and document it a bit with some specific recommended tags or keywords or whatever... Maybe QA could even look up the committers by email and compare against the submitter to determine if they have commit access or not, and display that information on the patch review pages? No need to be perfect, just more right than not. :) live well, vagrant --=-=-= Content-Type: application/pgp-signature; name="signature.asc" -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- iHQEARYKAB0WIQRlgHNhO/zFx+LkXUXcUY/If5cWqgUCY/UTBgAKCRDcUY/If5cW qo60AP0RWwNxbxMBIEOdGhHmQwJnLydQIPcA3vvaEhwLosJ3yAD3V2adjY/lCIFk +FviMjQJs1oSJXTlg2u7XonVkHvJCA== =08k5 -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --=-=-=--