From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from mp0.migadu.com ([2001:41d0:303:e224::]) (using TLSv1.3 with cipher TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 (256/256 bits)) by ms8.migadu.com with LMTPS id GN0wEaEowWU2/QAAqHPOHw:P1 (envelope-from ) for ; Mon, 05 Feb 2024 19:27:45 +0100 Received: from aspmx1.migadu.com ([2001:41d0:303:e224::]) (using TLSv1.3 with cipher TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 (256/256 bits)) by mp0.migadu.com with LMTPS id GN0wEaEowWU2/QAAqHPOHw (envelope-from ) for ; Mon, 05 Feb 2024 19:27:45 +0100 X-Envelope-To: larch@yhetil.org Authentication-Results: aspmx1.migadu.com; dkim=fail ("headers rsa verify failed") header.d=lease-up.com header.s=2017 header.b=cIHeqpB8; dmarc=pass (policy=none) header.from=gnu.org; spf=pass (aspmx1.migadu.com: domain of "help-guix-bounces+larch=yhetil.org@gnu.org" designates 209.51.188.17 as permitted sender) smtp.mailfrom="help-guix-bounces+larch=yhetil.org@gnu.org" ARC-Message-Signature: i=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=yhetil.org; s=key1; t=1707157665; h=from:from:sender:sender:reply-to: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=QtJvM5eiJKL+GTSJBRc7sThcvFmCxy+Xfcfps9C8FGQ=; b=fF9J2HSNxvaMsZyCX46XhPkC9X6tiuakBgbQ8QemqqKEK0X0Ltiioo1JCs3j8owTlu0amZ Ddgm8yioCsZLQeNBgGr/W+gTE8+rVsE2NJky0ilU/XMmzgyj4Mywm6ijDgd7DtiQrv45XT cItQk/CzbHw2BfTU0PWXW716Rrnny9nsl11sre/mAjoyMAFt5n8ixTfF6kxH/ClEEJgxo1 v3Llc3K24VC+HUO5xUQ0en+i3hEyj0RnuA321TnI5lqR86tGhDaZfOW4hdGCUCwBD3Kupb jyfIsaHu5MphZ57YLRPUYJxOpVNma84uIMQwuAU1/BGsOBX9UT06JjoM8CCGGA== ARC-Authentication-Results: i=1; aspmx1.migadu.com; dkim=fail ("headers rsa verify failed") header.d=lease-up.com header.s=2017 header.b=cIHeqpB8; dmarc=pass (policy=none) header.from=gnu.org; spf=pass (aspmx1.migadu.com: domain of "help-guix-bounces+larch=yhetil.org@gnu.org" designates 209.51.188.17 as permitted sender) smtp.mailfrom="help-guix-bounces+larch=yhetil.org@gnu.org" ARC-Seal: i=1; s=key1; d=yhetil.org; t=1707157665; a=rsa-sha256; cv=none; b=V82LS4cSMwU9LQTs5vRYLomtG23Li+WGm00yLTkflZwwleuhNtF+1+DP3pd8plnBBmdLzY vEIQ8q6pIh8+Tt/IbwvQ0t/S5OjqEaR1Bitg31qOlNZP6foRiWslHRd1BsIun5AgW/xFrS 6Glfic+Btj95aAJBihDykuoSQia8ApKIYrmq3j+nU7gechqAmwFACDQ4znXt+UTIssMN0E tAW/Oh0U10CrVr8frFwe5ck4lWZWOh+1q26FEmGA8v5EanoG6jkUHGn3ceqi3zcO2wdA1D 5C2mC05DJlXrxt+al1W1xjhO2gb9F4MpqQ/RVaqdo+mZ3wwiwd+iClD6lc53fw== 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 7DD5E629CC for ; Mon, 5 Feb 2024 19:27:44 +0100 (CET) Received: from localhost ([::1] helo=lists1p.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1rX3gY-0002Ux-Pr; Mon, 05 Feb 2024 13:27:14 -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 1rX3gW-0002Uf-0I; Mon, 05 Feb 2024 13:27:12 -0500 Received: from sail-ipv4.us-core.com ([208.82.101.137]) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtps (TLS1.2:ECDHE_RSA_CHACHA20_POLY1305:256) (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1rX3gT-0000d1-H0; Mon, 05 Feb 2024 13:27:11 -0500 DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=simple/simple; s=2017; bh=P+GwDa3vQakyXpU DaGjx+RRqv8XzuLd83EhSL8N75wM=; h=date:references:in-reply-to:subject: cc:to:from; d=lease-up.com; b=cIHeqpB8ITyYREBKG/kHSpkywZYGmpeELNUpAEu/ /c3JUixb+pmW6F8Rof2aqzkQEDdEXvZqDthb+D09OjtuzDAm2HhF7wrdNbXVarsHDaHf3P 5PVqCRvyFno3gL/ra4DKsrP4NSEI+yLXI/Jo7RQNGMUNGEuVmME0EFQqhJ7IE= Received: by sail-ipv4.us-core.com (OpenSMTPD) with ESMTPSA id 8860b3e9 (TLSv1.3:TLS_CHACHA20_POLY1305_SHA256:256:NO); Mon, 5 Feb 2024 18:27:07 +0000 (UTC) To: =?utf-8?Q?Cl=C3=A9ment?= Lassieur , "Felix Lechner via Development of GNU Guix and the GNU System distribution." Cc: Steve George , help-guix@gnu.org Subject: Re: Guix Days: Patch flow discussion In-Reply-To: <87il3295xd.fsf@lassieur.org> References: <10c82db7-6fc6-4fa0-8213-e207fa54db58@futurile.net> <87msse9a5q.fsf@lassieur.org> <87zfwe7s6v.fsf@lease-up.com> <87il3295xd.fsf@lassieur.org> Date: Mon, 05 Feb 2024 10:27:06 -0800 Message-ID: <87wmri7on9.fsf@lease-up.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Received-SPF: pass client-ip=208.82.101.137; envelope-from=felix.lechner@lease-up.com; helo=sail-ipv4.us-core.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, SPF_HELO_NONE=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: help-guix@gnu.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29 Precedence: list List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Reply-to: Felix Lechner From: Felix Lechner via Errors-To: help-guix-bounces+larch=yhetil.org@gnu.org Sender: help-guix-bounces+larch=yhetil.org@gnu.org X-Migadu-Flow: FLOW_IN X-Migadu-Country: US X-Migadu-Spam-Score: -4.18 X-Spam-Score: -4.18 X-Migadu-Queue-Id: 7DD5E629CC X-Migadu-Scanner: mx12.migadu.com X-TUID: 9PkSyQrFAS2J On Mon, Feb 05 2024, Cl=C3=A9ment Lassieur wrote: > On Mon, Feb 05 2024, Felix Lechner via "Development of GNU Guix and the G= NU System distribution." wrote: > > I see no evidence here. And I'm unsure which plan you are talking > about (the plan?). Two people can look at the same thing and reach different conclusions. I see no evidence that large numbers of non-committers are eager to review patches. > What do you mean with "bottom"? I'm sorry to put words into your mouth. I meant to quote an executive at a bank who explained that strategy to me. The word "bottom" was his and should have been a quote. The executive referred to people without the authority to act on behalf of the group. I believe Guix would be better off to delegate responsibility (rather than competency) by handing out commit access more generously but imposing limits as to the type of changes a person may make. The honor system will work fine. > Reviewing !=3D Closing Maybe they should be the same. Two people looking at a patch (submitter and committer) are more efficient than three people, i.e. a submitter, a reviewer, and a committer. It's one of several bottlenecks at Guix. Another is that committers should commit what they think is right rather than ask for revised patches. Please give authorship to the submitter. Kind regards Felix