GNOME 40

GNOME 40

[Raghav Gururajan]

[-- Attachment #1.1: Type: text/plain, Size: 308 bytes --]

Hello Guix!

I am starting this thread for the work on GNOME 40.

Currently, Léo Le Bouter <lle-bout> and I are working together on this. 
Any one is welcome to join. :-)

P.S.
Anyone replying to this thread, please `reply-all` or manually `CC` all 
participants.

Thank you!

Regards,
RG.


[-- Attachment #2: OpenPGP digital signature --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 236 bytes --]

Re: GNOME 40

[Léo Le Bouter]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 766 bytes --]

If anyone is curious of the work or wants to participate, we are
working there: 
https://git.guix-patches.cbaines.net/guix-patches/log/?h=wip-gnome-40

The branch is based on core-updates and we will rebase it every now and
then, as well as merging patches to official core-updates as we feel it
is necessary.

cbaines gave us access to the git repo, it's not official so it's more
flexible, right now the access cbaines gives is all in and trustful,
but in the future they plan on getting branch access control with 
https://gitolite.com/gitolite/ so that people can be given access to
wip branches with associated continuous integration infrastructure for
development.

If anyone wants to participate, please reach to cbaines about access.

Léo

[-- Attachment #2: This is a digitally signed message part --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 833 bytes --]

Re: GNOME 40

[Mark H Weaver]

Léo Le Bouter <lle-bout@zaclys.net> writes:

> If anyone is curious of the work or wants to participate, we are
> working there: 
> https://git.guix-patches.cbaines.net/guix-patches/log/?h=wip-gnome-40
>
> The branch is based on core-updates and we will rebase it every now and
> then, as well as merging patches to official core-updates as we feel it
> is necessary.
>
> cbaines gave us access to the git repo, it's not official so it's more
> flexible,

How is it more flexible than a "wip-*" branch on Savannah?

     Thanks,
       Mark

Re: GNOME 40

[Christopher Baines]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1246 bytes --]


Mark H Weaver <mhw@netris.org> writes:

> Léo Le Bouter <lle-bout@zaclys.net> writes:
>
>> If anyone is curious of the work or wants to participate, we are
>> working there:
>> https://git.guix-patches.cbaines.net/guix-patches/log/?h=wip-gnome-40
>>
>> The branch is based on core-updates and we will rebase it every now and
>> then, as well as merging patches to official core-updates as we feel it
>> is necessary.
>>
>> cbaines gave us access to the git repo, it's not official so it's more
>> flexible,
>
> How is it more flexible than a "wip-*" branch on Savannah?

I wouldn't use quite the same words as Léo, but from my perspective,
controlling access to particular branches (master, staging,
core-updates, ...) on Savannah is a good thing, as it reduces risk. I
don't think that's relevant for all branches though, it would be better
if more people could collaborate through wip-* branches (if that's
useful to them).

As Savannah doesn't allow for access control per branch (or even per
project repository), currently to give someone access to anything, you
have to give them access to everything. Maybe that's possible to
improve, but using some other Git repository hosted elsewhere is one
workaround.

[-- Attachment #2: signature.asc --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 987 bytes --]

Re: GNOME 40

[Raghav Gururajan]

[-- Attachment #1.1: Type: text/plain, Size: 916 bytes --]

Hello Guix!

> If anyone is curious of the work or wants to participate, we are
> working there:
> https://git.guix-patches.cbaines.net/guix-patches/log/?h=wip-gnome-40
> 
> The branch is based on core-updates and we will rebase it every now and
> then, as well as merging patches to official core-updates as we feel it
> is necessary.
> 
> cbaines gave us access to the git repo, it's not official so it's more
> flexible, right now the access cbaines gives is all in and trustful,
> but in the future they plan on getting branch access control with
> https://gitolite.com/gitolite/ so that people can be given access to
> wip branches with associated continuous integration infrastructure for
> development.
> 
> If anyone wants to participate, please reach to cbaines about access.

Now we have a chart for navigation. \o/

Chart: https://calc.disroot.org/guix-gnome.html

Regards,
RG.


[-- Attachment #2: OpenPGP digital signature --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 236 bytes --]

Re: GNOME 40

[Léo Le Bouter]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 381 bytes --]

On Sun, 2021-03-28 at 16:48 -0400, Mark H Weaver wrote:
> How is it more flexible than a "wip-*" branch on Savannah?
> 
>      Thanks,
>        Mark

Because as the GNU Guix project we have no control on the forge to
catter it to our own needs, because there is bureaucracy involved with
approving new committers so they can work on wip branches (shouldnt be
necessary).

[-- Attachment #2: This is a digitally signed message part --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 833 bytes --]

GNOME 40 work should be done on Savannah (was: Re: GNOME 40)

[Mark H Weaver]

Christopher Baines <mail@cbaines.net> writes:

> Mark H Weaver <mhw@netris.org> writes:
>> How is it more flexible than a "wip-*" branch on Savannah?
>
> I wouldn't use quite the same words as Léo, but from my perspective,
> controlling access to particular branches (master, staging,
> core-updates, ...) on Savannah is a good thing, as it reduces risk.

I don't see much risk here.  You're talking about a 'wip' branch that
almost no one will be using anyway.  We already trust all Guix
committers with our master branch, which directly and immediately
affects any Guix user who updates their system at the right time.

If someone commits something inappropriate to a 'wip' branch, we can all
easily see that they did so, investigate more closely, and optionally
revert the changes.

Léo Le Bouter <lle-bout@zaclys.net> writes:

> On Sun, 2021-03-28 at 16:48 -0400, Mark H Weaver wrote:
>> How is it more flexible than a "wip-*" branch on Savannah?
>
> Because as the GNU Guix project we have no control on the forge to
> catter it to our own needs,

This sounds theoretical.  Concretely, what needs do you have that aren't
being met by Savannah?

> because there is bureaucracy involved with approving new committers so
> they can work on wip branches (shouldnt be necessary).

I don't understand this.  It seems to me the opposite.

If I want to contribute to this external 'wip' branch, I need to arrange
for access.  Ditto for any other Guix committer who wants to work on it.
That's added "bureaucracy" entailed by your approach that would not be
needed for 'wip' branches on Savannah.

On the other hand, maybe your point is that you'd like to allow direct
commit access to this 'wip' branch by people who don't have commit
access to Savannah.  If that's the goal, I find that objectionable,
because when this branch is finally merged, all of those commits will
suddenly get dumped into Savannah.  That increases "risk" from my
perspective.

I actively do not want commits getting into Savannah without an existing
Guix committer taking responsibility for them.  Your approach
effectively creates a loophole for non-committers to potentially
introduce many commits into the official Guix repository in a way that
is likely to not get adequate oversight.

* * *

I'd strongly prefer for this work to be done on Savannah.  If this were
a fringe branch of marginal interest, it might make sense to have it
elsewhere, but this is core Guix desktop work that's likely to be of
interest to a large segment (plausibly a majority) of our community.
IMO, it belongs in our official git repository.

Thoughts?

      Mark

Re: GNOME 40 work should be done on Savannah (was: Re: GNOME 40)

[Léo Le Bouter]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 3128 bytes --]

Hello!

On Mon, 2021-03-29 at 19:02 -0400, Mark H Weaver wrote:
> This sounds theoretical.  Concretely, what needs do you have that
> aren't
> being met by Savannah?

Per-branch access control

> I don't understand this.  It seems to me the opposite.
> 
> If I want to contribute to this external 'wip' branch, I need to
> arrange
> for access.  Ditto for any other Guix committer who wants to work on
> it.
> That's added "bureaucracy" entailed by your approach that would not
> be
> needed for 'wip' branches on Savannah.

Cbaines is more responsive and has much lower requirements than what
the "Commit Access" for GNU Guix itself requires. It's as if we created
a third party git repo for both of us Raghav and myself then
collaborated there except through Cbaines's infra we get CI
infrastructure for free.

> On the other hand, maybe your point is that you'd like to allow
> direct
> commit access to this 'wip' branch by people who don't have commit
> access to Savannah.  If that's the goal, I find that objectionable,
> because when this branch is finally merged, all of those commits will
> suddenly get dumped into Savannah.  That increases "risk" from my
> perspective.
> 
> I actively do not want commits getting into Savannah without an
> existing
> Guix committer taking responsibility for them.  Your approach
> effectively creates a loophole for non-committers to potentially
> introduce many commits into the official Guix repository in a way
> that
> is likely to not get adequate oversight.

Why would it not get adequate oversight? It's just an easier way to
collaborate on patches, but the patchset would be sent over to guix-
patches before getting merged to master or else.

In general I don't agree with such gatekeeping of access to wip
branches because it actively hinders the development of GNU Guix by
non-committers, and many non-committers would like to get involved more
but they are barred by the commit access requirement.

> * * *
> 
> I'd strongly prefer for this work to be done on Savannah.  If this
> were
> a fringe branch of marginal interest, it might make sense to have it
> elsewhere, but this is core Guix desktop work that's likely to be of
> interest to a large segment (plausibly a majority) of our community.
> IMO, it belongs in our official git repository.
> 
> Thoughts?
> 
>       Mark

The people that work on it now are Raghav and me, and Raghav does not
have commit access yet, so that's the only way we can work and
cooperate now. We don't have a choice. If and when Raghav's commit
access application is approved then we can move to Savannah.

I don't feel like people should be barred to contribute to that GNOME
40 upgrade because they arent an approved committer. That doesnt feel
inclusive to me.

If you want to work on this GNOME upgrade however, that help is more
than welcome, in this particular situation probably we can work on
getting Raghav's commit access application approved then your concerns
will be sorted out as no other non-committer participant seemed to show
up.

Léo

[-- Attachment #2: This is a digitally signed message part --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 833 bytes --]

Re: GNOME 40 work should be done on Savannah (was: Re: GNOME 40)

[Mark H Weaver]

Hi Léo,

Léo Le Bouter <lle-bout@zaclys.net> writes:
> The people that work on it now are Raghav and me, and Raghav does not
> have commit access yet, so that's the only way we can work and
> cooperate now. We don't have a choice.

Sorry, but that's simply false.  You _do_ have a choice.  You can do
what we've been doing in the Guix community for years: as a committer,
_you_ can commit the work of non-committers on their behalf.  If not
you, then any of the other ~64 Guix committers can do so.

Needless to say, before committing, you must review the proposed
patches, for the sake of your reputation.  The fact that you must do
this is a *feature*, not a bug.

> I don't feel like people should be barred to contribute to that GNOME
> 40 upgrade because they arent an approved committer. That doesnt feel
> inclusive to me.

No one is "barred" from contributing.  Raghav and many others without
commit access have been successfully contributing to Guix for years.

I understand that it's inconvenient.  Naturally, you would like to
eliminate that inconvenience.

The thing is, the work of non-committers *must* be reviewed at some
point, anyway.  Moreover, a committer must take responsibility by
digitally signing it.  To eliminate either of these steps would put us
at risk.

There's no guarantee that the work of Guix committers will be reviewed
by anyone else, because no one else's reputation is on the line.  Some
of us try to keep an eye on things, but I would not bet on that
oversight being comprehensive.  I'm certainly not doing it
comprehensively.

With this in mind, I think that we *should* have a high standard for
committers.  The security of our systems, as well as Guix's reputation
as a project, depends upon the good judgment of _every_ Guix committer.

Observe what can happen with projects that are too lax:

  https://arstechnica.com/gadgets/2021/03/buffer-overruns-license-violations-and-bad-code-freebsd-13s-close-call/

> Why would it not get adequate oversight? It's just an easier way to
> collaborate on patches, but the patchset would be sent over to guix-
> patches before getting merged to master or else.

Upgrading GNOME is not trivial.  It will be a large patch set.  A large
patch set presented to guix-patches when the branch is ready to merge is
far less likely to get careful review than if the review is done a few
commits at a time.  That's because, at any given time, it's easier to
find Guix developers with a few minutes available to carefully review a
small handful of commits, than to find developers prepared to review a
non-trivial branch merge.  If they're reviewed at all, reviews of larger
code drops are more likely to be superficial.

* * *

In summary: it seems to me that working in an external repository with a
larger set of committers would not actually save time, because it would
merely postpone the required review work until the end of the process
when the branch is ready to be merged into Savannah.  Moreover, it would
likely reduce the quality of that review work.

Does that make sense?

    Regards,
      Mark

Re: GNOME 40 work should be done on Savannah (was: Re: GNOME 40)

[Christopher Baines]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1794 bytes --]


Mark H Weaver <mhw@netris.org> writes:

> Christopher Baines <mail@cbaines.net> writes:
>
>> Mark H Weaver <mhw@netris.org> writes:
>>> How is it more flexible than a "wip-*" branch on Savannah?
>>
>> I wouldn't use quite the same words as Léo, but from my perspective,
>> controlling access to particular branches (master, staging,
>> core-updates, ...) on Savannah is a good thing, as it reduces risk.
>
> I don't see much risk here.  You're talking about a 'wip' branch that
> almost no one will be using anyway.  We already trust all Guix
> committers with our master branch, which directly and immediately
> affects any Guix user who updates their system at the right time.

No, I was talking about particular branches, master, staging,
core-updates, ... and controlling access to those more sensitive
branches.

I mention this as context for discussing acesss control to wip-*
branches, because currently as I understand it, if someone wants access
to work on a specific wip- branch, the only way to do that is grant
access to all branches in all repositories in the Guix Savannah project.

...

> I'd strongly prefer for this work to be done on Savannah.  If this were
> a fringe branch of marginal interest, it might make sense to have it
> elsewhere, but this is core Guix desktop work that's likely to be of
> interest to a large segment (plausibly a majority) of our community.
> IMO, it belongs in our official git repository.

I'm not commenting on this Gnome 40 related work, as I'm not really
involved, but I do think there's some potential for improvement
regarding how wip- branches are handled.

Having them on Savannah is great as you say, but that makes these
branches more difficult to use for people who don't have commit access.

[-- Attachment #2: signature.asc --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 987 bytes --]

Re: GNOME 40 work should be done on Savannah (was: Re: GNOME 40)

[zimoun]

Hi,

> The thing is, the work of non-committers *must* be reviewed at some
> point, anyway.  Moreover, a committer must take responsibility by
> digitally signing it.  To eliminate either of these steps would put us
> at risk.
>
> There's no guarantee that the work of Guix committers will be reviewed
> by anyone else, because no one else's reputation is on the line.  Some
> of us try to keep an eye on things, but I would not bet on that
> oversight being comprehensive.  I'm certainly not doing it
> comprehensively.

Reviewing does not require commit access.  Examples [1,2] among many
others.  The recent (trivial) addition of Julia packages [3] is
interesting in this regard, IMHO.  It is a chain of trust.  Committer
has the final word.

And to my taste, there is too much non-trivial patches pushed without
going through guix-patches first.  Another story.

1: <http://issues.guix.gnu.org/44032>
2: <http://issues.guix.gnu.org/46806>
3: <http://issues.guix.gnu.org/47350>

>> The people that work on it now are Raghav and me, and Raghav does not
>> have commit access yet, so that's the only way we can work and
>> cooperate now. We don't have a choice.
>
> Sorry, but that's simply false.  You _do_ have a choice.  You can do
> what we've been doing in the Guix community for years: as a committer,
> _you_ can commit the work of non-committers on their behalf.  If not
> you, then any of the other ~64 Guix committers can do so.

[...]

>> I don't feel like people should be barred to contribute to that GNOME
>> 40 upgrade because they arent an approved committer. That doesnt feel
>> inclusive to me.
>
> No one is "barred" from contributing.  Raghav and many others without
> commit access have been successfully contributing to Guix for years.
>
> I understand that it's inconvenient.  Naturally, you would like to
> eliminate that inconvenience.

I miss something.  Is the Git ’remote’ not fitting the need?

Well, for instance, I have currently 4 remotes, some where I fetch, some
where I push.

For example, to avoid to overflow guix-patch when updating Bioconductor
R packages, Ricardo (committer) pushed the work on the Savannah branch
’wip-r’, i.e, I fetched from Savannah, tweaked, pushed to my personal
repo, Ricardo fetched from it, etc. with a simple synchronisation on
#guix or #guix-hpc.

Another example is the recent Outreachy.  Magali (intern) pushed their
work on their own repo, I (non-committer) fetched from it, commented,
etc.  Then once ready, I do not remember who (committer) pushed to the
Savannah branch ’wip-guix-log’ (help with review welcome ;-)).

Another example is the recent Cuirass / new offloading thing.  Mathieu
did some work on a branch in their personal repo, asked me to give a
look, so I fetched, commented, etc. then they pushed to ’master’
Savannah a part of it, still improving other part on their personal
branch, etc.

Well, I should miss something.  In my understanding, Git is designed to
allow collaboration without a central repo.  Is it not what
“distributed” means in DVCS?

If having a central repo—–where a large number of people can write
in––eases the work, why not.  But the key point is to regularly push to
a ’wip-gnome’ branch or ’core-updates’ on Savannah.  Savannah must be
the reference.  For 2 practical reasons: 1) it is more discoverable,
i.e., inclusive, for newcomers (clone the Guix repo Savannah, press ’y’
with Magit, see ’wip-gnome’, contribute!) and 2) it increases the chance
that other Guixers give a look time to time.

Last, I agree with Mark, regularly pushing to Savannah is the guarantee
that the final work is fully respecting the Guix standards.  By doing
so, it is the responsibility of the committer by signing off to ensure
that the standards are respected.

Somehow, it is the plan, right?  And a “miscommunication” about the word
«flexible» and about how to exchange large numbers of patches without
’format-patch+send-email’?

Cheers,
simon

Re: GNOME 40 work should be done on Savannah

[Ludovic Courtès]

Hi Léo,

Léo Le Bouter <lle-bout@zaclys.net> skribis:

> I don't feel like people should be barred to contribute to that GNOME
> 40 upgrade because they arent an approved committer. That doesnt feel
> inclusive to me.

I respectfully think you misunderstand the review process.  Review is
about sharing responsibilities and reducing the likelihood of mistakes.

It’s crucial from many different perspectives: security-wise, socially
(the process is transparent, everyone gets a chance to chime in or to
just see what’s cooking), and technically (we all learn and build better
software, and we reduce the risk that users receive broken software on
their next ‘guix pull’).

The process to get commit access is documented and it revolves around
two criteria: the person must have experience with the project and must
know the rules.

That’s not “bureaucracy”: it’s about building a community around mutual
understanding of what each one of us may or may not expect from their
peers.


All that said, it’s of course fine to collaborate on external
repositories, even though I agree with Mark that getting “closer” to
Guix folks may be profitable to everyone.  In the end, work should be
submitted for review, and for a patch set like this, it’ll probably be a
‘wip-’ branch on Savannah.

Thanks,
Ludo’.

Re: GNOME 40 work should be done on Savannah (was: Re: GNOME 40)

[Léo Le Bouter]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 3349 bytes --]

On Tue, 2021-03-30 at 02:41 -0400, Mark H Weaver wrote:
> Sorry, but that's simply false.  You _do_ have a choice.  You can do
> what we've been doing in the Guix community for years: as a
> committer,
> _you_ can commit the work of non-committers on their behalf.  If not
> you, then any of the other ~64 Guix committers can do so.
> 
> Needless to say, before committing, you must review the proposed
> patches, for the sake of your reputation.  The fact that you must do
> this is a *feature*, not a bug.

Nobody is talking about skipping the review process, as I said, it's
just about collaborating over git rather than with patches (good for
little patches but very troublesome for larger patchsets)

> No one is "barred" from contributing.  Raghav and many others without
> commit access have been successfully contributing to Guix for years.
> 
> I understand that it's inconvenient.  Naturally, you would like to
> eliminate that inconvenience.
> 
> The thing is, the work of non-committers *must* be reviewed at some
> point, anyway.  Moreover, a committer must take responsibility by
> digitally signing it.  To eliminate either of these steps would put
> us
> at risk.
> 
> There's no guarantee that the work of Guix committers will be
> reviewed
> by anyone else, because no one else's reputation is on the
> line.  Some
> of us try to keep an eye on things, but I would not bet on that
> oversight being comprehensive.  I'm certainly not doing it
> comprehensively.
> 
> With this in mind, I think that we *should* have a high standard for
> committers.  The security of our systems, as well as Guix's
> reputation
> as a project, depends upon the good judgment of _every_ Guix
> committer.
> 
> Observe what can happen with projects that are too lax:
> 
>   
> https://arstechnica.com/gadgets/2021/03/buffer-overruns-license-violations-and-bad-code-freebsd-13s-close-call/
> 

I don't think we are on the same page.

> Upgrading GNOME is not trivial.  It will be a large patch set.  A
> large
> patch set presented to guix-patches when the branch is ready to merge
> is
> far less likely to get careful review than if the review is done a
> few
> commits at a time.  That's because, at any given time, it's easier to
> find Guix developers with a few minutes available to carefully review
> a
> small handful of commits, than to find developers prepared to review
> a
> non-trivial branch merge.  If they're reviewed at all, reviews of
> larger
> code drops are more likely to be superficial.

We also go by steps and review things as they appear with Raghav,
collaborating over git is just easier than exchanging patches for
testing/review back&forth.

> * * *
> 
> In summary: it seems to me that working in an external repository
> with a
> larger set of committers would not actually save time, because it
> would
> merely postpone the required review work until the end of the process
> when the branch is ready to be merged into Savannah.  Moreover, it
> would
> likely reduce the quality of that review work.
> 
> Does that make sense?

Not to me, the git vector is just a way to collaborate more easily but
things would still get reviewed (in smaller patchsets if necessary
also) before getting merged.

>     Regards,
>       Mark

Léo

[-- Attachment #2: This is a digitally signed message part --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 833 bytes --]

Re: GNOME 40 work should be done on Savannah

[Léo Le Bouter]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1912 bytes --]

On Tue, 2021-03-30 at 14:12 +0200, Ludovic Courtès wrote:
> I respectfully think you misunderstand the review process.  Review is
> about sharing responsibilities and reducing the likelihood of
> mistakes.
> 
> It’s crucial from many different perspectives: security-wise,
> socially
> (the process is transparent, everyone gets a chance to chime in or to
> just see what’s cooking), and technically (we all learn and build
> better
> software, and we reduce the risk that users receive broken software
> on
> their next ‘guix pull’).
> 
> The process to get commit access is documented and it revolves around
> two criteria: the person must have experience with the project and
> must
> know the rules.
> 
> That’s not “bureaucracy”: it’s about building a community around
> mutual
> understanding of what each one of us may or may not expect from their
> peers.
> 
> 
> All that said, it’s of course fine to collaborate on external
> repositories, even though I agree with Mark that getting “closer” to
> Guix folks may be profitable to everyone.  In the end, work should be
> submitted for review, and for a patch set like this, it’ll probably
> be a
> ‘wip-’ branch on Savannah.
> 
> Thanks,
> Ludo’.

I think Mark misrepresents my sayings in their messages. We are ONLY
using git to exchange work and collaborate on the patchset with Raghav,
how else do you want us to work with Raghav on some git branch on
Savannah if Raghav doesnt have commit access? Don't we have the right
with Raghav to cooperate together on some patchset however we want? It
never meant that review process had to be skipped in ANY way.

Only Raghav and myself has showed up to cooperate on GNOME 40 upgrade
for now, and that's also why we are doing it this way.

I feel bad now that it seems like everyone assumes we are doing things
we are not.

Léo

[-- Attachment #2: This is a digitally signed message part --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 833 bytes --]

Re: GNOME 40 work should be done on Savannah

[Léo Le Bouter]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1350 bytes --]

On Tue, 2021-03-30 at 14:12 +0200, Ludovic Courtès wrote:
> > I don't feel like people should be barred to contribute to that
> > GNOME
> > 40 upgrade because they arent an approved committer. That doesnt
> > feel
> > inclusive to me.
> 
> I respectfully think you misunderstand the review process.  Review is
> about sharing responsibilities and reducing the likelihood of
> mistakes.

Additionally, please put that quote into it's surrounding context and
don't assume things I have not said, I was explicitly speaking about
wip branches on Savannah excluding non-committers from collaborating on
them easily.

If I created a wip-gnome-40 branch on Savannah then Raghav cannot push
and we cannot work together easily, that way the GNOME 40 upgrade
probably wont happen because Raghav is already tired I felt in some
way.

I think the way we work here is the best conditions to capture Raghav's
motivation and energy right now and invest it within this GNOME 40
upgrade before they give up and we don't have this GNOME 40 upgrade
worked on. We need git to collaborate on patches together, that's all. 
But those patches of course do get through the review process, first
with me reviewing changes as they happen, then as a whole also, because
we wont push anything to core-updates, master or else without review.

Léo

[-- Attachment #2: This is a digitally signed message part --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 833 bytes --]

Re: GNOME 40 work should be done on Savannah

[Mark H Weaver]

Hi Léo,

Léo Le Bouter <lle-bout@zaclys.net> writes:
> I think Mark misrepresents my sayings in their messages.

I'm sorry if that happened.  It was not my intent.  Can you show me what
I wrote that misrepresents your position?

> We are ONLY using git to exchange work and collaborate on the patchset
> with Raghav, how else do you want us to work with Raghav on some git
> branch on Savannah if Raghav doesnt have commit access?

I answered essentially the same question in my last message, so I'm not
sure why you're asking again.  We've been successfully accepting
contributions from non-committers for years.

> Don't we have the right with Raghav to cooperate together on some
> patchset however we want?

Yes, of course.  To be clear: you are well within your *rights* to do
so, regardless of what anyone else thinks.

My main concerns are:

(1) The primary branch for GNOME 40 work should be on Savannah, and
    that's where we should encourage Guix developers to do this work.
    No Guix developer should be asked to work on an external site in
    order to contribute to the GNOME 40 effort.

(2) Any work that you and Raghav do on an external site should be
    _regularly_ merged into Savannah, in manageable pieces, after being
    reviewed of course.  If you do this, my concerns over review quality
    would be addressed.

(3) If changes are made on the 'wip' branch on Savannah that conflict
    with your preliminary work on an external site, it would be your
    responsibility to rebase your work as needed, just as anyone
    proposing a patch would be expected to do.  That should be an
    incentive to submit your work to Savannah early and often.

Would this be acceptable to you?

    Regards,
      Mark

Re: GNOME 40 work should be done on Savannah

[Léo Le Bouter]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 2588 bytes --]

On Tue, 2021-03-30 at 21:55 -0400, Mark H Weaver wrote:
> I'm sorry if that happened.  It was not my intent.  Can you show me
> what
> I wrote that misrepresents your position?

I don't have the energy now I feel already bad enough this discussion
even happened, in a way that even Ludo, the creator of the GNU Guix
project, ended up saying that they think I don't understand the review
process. I think I do understand it and I wonder why anyone made me a
GNU Guix committer if they think any other way.

> I answered essentially the same question in my last message, so I'm
> not
> sure why you're asking again.  We've been successfully accepting
> contributions from non-committers for years.

I think one has to realize that being a non-committer is a really
frustrating experience even if your work is of good quality and that
frustrating experience is demotivating and makes people give up. And
having a branch and special relationship with a GNU Guix committer
(like what we're doing with Raghav) is helpful to capture Raghav's
motivation and energy in a way they do not get frustrated and give up.

> Yes, of course.  To be clear: you are well within your *rights* to do
> so, regardless of what anyone else thinks.
> 
> My main concerns are:
> 
> (1) The primary branch for GNOME 40 work should be on Savannah, and
>     that's where we should encourage Guix developers to do this work.
>     No Guix developer should be asked to work on an external site in
>     order to contribute to the GNOME 40 effort.

That's where it felt it was the best place to collaborate for me and
Raghav (non-committer).

> 
> (2) Any work that you and Raghav do on an external site should be
>     _regularly_ merged into Savannah, in manageable pieces, after
> being
>     reviewed of course.  If you do this, my concerns over review
> quality
>     would be addressed.

We already seek to do this.

> 
> (3) If changes are made on the 'wip' branch on Savannah that conflict
>     with your preliminary work on an external site, it would be your
>     responsibility to rebase your work as needed, just as anyone
>     proposing a patch would be expected to do.  That should be an
>     incentive to submit your work to Savannah early and often.

If changes were to be made in a way that rebasing work and solving
conflicts becomes too much trouble we will probably give up (Raghav
probably) and there wont be any GNOME 40 upgrade.

> Would this be acceptable to you?

I don't even know anymore.

>     Regards,
>       Mark

Léo

[-- Attachment #2: This is a digitally signed message part --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 833 bytes --]

Re: GNOME 40

[宋文武]

> If anyone is curious of the work or wants to participate, we are
> working there: 
> https://git.guix-patches.cbaines.net/guix-patches/log/?h=wip-gnome-40
>
Hello, looks great!  I'd like to do some work for GNOME4 too, mostly at
weekends though.

> If anyone wants to participate, please reach to cbaines about access.
>
Um, not sure yet, I'll ask later if I need it...


Léo Le Bouter <lle-bout@zaclys.net> writes:

> On Sun, 2021-03-28 at 16:48 -0400, Mark H Weaver wrote:
>> How is it more flexible than a "wip-*" branch on Savannah?
>> 
>>      Thanks,
>>        Mark
>
> Because as the GNU Guix project we have no control on the forge to
> catter it to our own needs, because there is bureaucracy involved with
> approving new committers so they can work on wip branches (shouldnt be
> necessary).

Does't our savannah repository need committers' gpg signatures for
'wip-*' branch too?

If it is, then I guess there could be some problems.  To push to
savannah, I have to git rebase the cbaines wip-gnome-40 branch to add my
signature to all the commits?  I haven't did this, any help?

If it is not, then I think there should be little difference for me to
use savannah or cbaines's repository.  I can merge cbaines/wip-gnome-40
into savannah/wip-gnome-40 many times, and when it's ready, send patches
to the list for pick, or do some works to get rid of the merge commits
if needed..

Eager to see GNOME4 on Guix!

Re: GNOME 40

[Raghav Gururajan]

[-- Attachment #1.1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1124 bytes --]

Hello Guix!

Sorry for the delayed response. I also didn't receive emails as I am not 
subscribed to the list.

@Mark

Thanks for bringing up your concern, which is very valid. My hyper-focus 
on working on GNOME40 slightly made me to overlook certain things like 
mail-lists and reviews, even though I deeply value them.

@Chistopher @zimoun @civodul

Thank you all for your thoughts.

@Leo

It is very natural that one might miss certain things while intensively 
working on something. Its great we had/have these folks and other 
community members to have our backs by keeping us in check. :)

Let us do this,
[1] Create wip-gnome branch on savannah
[2] Create guix-patches thread for wip-gnome.
[3] Leo, me or anyone else can contribute by sending patches to that thread.
[4] Leo and I (hopefully after getting commit access) can review and 
push the patches to wip-gnome.
[5] From wip-gnome, any existing committers can double-check and merge 
commits to core-updates.

Sounds good for everyone?

Let us all work together and make Guix's GNOME awesome, comrades! :-)

Regards,
RG.


[-- Attachment #2: OpenPGP digital signature --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 236 bytes --]

Re: GNOME 40

[宋文武]

Hello!

Last week I tried to package GTK4, haven't done it yet.


Raghav Gururajan <rg@raghavgururajan.name> writes:

> Let us do this,
> [1] Create wip-gnome branch on savannah
I think Leo created it already, thanks.

> [2] Create guix-patches thread for wip-gnome.
> [3] Leo, me or anyone else can contribute by sending patches to that thread.
> [4] Leo and I (hopefully after getting commit access) can review and
> push the patches to wip-gnome.
> [5] From wip-gnome, any existing committers can double-check and merge
> commits to core-updates.
>
> Sounds good for everyone?

Yes!
>
> Let us all work together and make Guix's GNOME awesome, comrades! :-)
>
> Regards,
> RG.

Sure, thank you!

Re: GNOME 40

[Mark H Weaver]

Hi Raghav,

Raghav Gururajan <rg@raghavgururajan.name> writes:

> Let us do this,
> [1] Create wip-gnome branch on savannah
> [2] Create guix-patches thread for wip-gnome.
> [3] Leo, me or anyone else can contribute by sending patches to that thread.
> [4] Leo and I (hopefully after getting commit access) can review and 
> push the patches to wip-gnome.
> [5] From wip-gnome, any existing committers can double-check and merge 
> commits to core-updates.
>
> Sounds good for everyone?

Sounds good to me, thank you!

    Regards,
      Mark