From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from mp12.migadu.com ([2001:41d0:403:4789::]) (using TLSv1.3 with cipher TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 (256/256 bits)) by ms9.migadu.com with LMTPS id OFtYHqMnB2UgUAEAauVa8A:P1 (envelope-from ) for ; Sun, 17 Sep 2023 18:21:55 +0200 Received: from aspmx1.migadu.com ([2001:41d0:403:4789::]) (using TLSv1.3 with cipher TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 (256/256 bits)) by mp12.migadu.com with LMTPS id OFtYHqMnB2UgUAEAauVa8A (envelope-from ) for ; Sun, 17 Sep 2023 18:21:55 +0200 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 3E4ED43310 for ; Sun, 17 Sep 2023 18:21:55 +0200 (CEST) Authentication-Results: aspmx1.migadu.com; dkim=none ("invalid DKIM record") header.d=msavoritias.me header.s=20210930 header.b=QtJTK5nj; 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=fail reason="SPF not aligned (relaxed)" header.from=msavoritias.me (policy=none) ARC-Message-Signature: i=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=yhetil.org; s=key1; t=1694967715; 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: 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=d5ChXBCfSGHV8D9YEVCDDy2+W6SUHl7ndS6S+MnDhn4=; b=NjjjCoCfSLoCl3D0NSLJ7ZqbJN88yczfU3tZ/n/mDrnqt3+jqbRT9xrRQ9Kt5WKbXe/irp 5zPwe9cLNklSRP2sFvwoblmHrZkfopXAJ0SMVqx6ZyiNB6hjB2ZPZGGihkO90CKFAZxFUE 7aRgp0NrLFU5R9d3XcPHsDKAMTHIsI3G16BPc5ehtcdbpKdFV5NsoWwWY+MylU7EzcjU3x Fzm+h8Q2DPDbemKs36j3Hp9WYI+W2ggyulM7A9qnxpVvPYmIx1b5qVPqj+H3WPUs8pFCxJ sVFeYQfL5T7ED6qMZXsgGLTNTnV+KKLSmqDKnD/TiEuANo7IDgW2joflld2xJg== ARC-Authentication-Results: i=1; aspmx1.migadu.com; dkim=none ("invalid DKIM record") header.d=msavoritias.me header.s=20210930 header.b=QtJTK5nj; 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=fail reason="SPF not aligned (relaxed)" header.from=msavoritias.me (policy=none) ARC-Seal: i=1; s=key1; d=yhetil.org; t=1694967715; a=rsa-sha256; cv=none; b=NQ10CrYgJ21W/H9M5bojFr3FY7Hmo52924Yyo3xhrWnczNn+Xwys+GtB2HrbNObTi2A7T3 o1ghpfiyKsGmy1CxN8Y4MqcPGBct09BWq8QbC1VwZZL23sPbqcUlJxxeE66EX+H58/LO7q U5kNXSdfWiMjmZMXKDE8L/s2enZuOX60aKNvhV1q7u6njLTB23ISuVpZOH/BWwq91avKxa IK0c4sBN2F51jqeeqiLXFCMEUNaoasDPmqFBug4miNKp9/uaWtssfC1Kz5D0b4fT7g1oqz dvxeUzZPBJNYnaTjDc4eRaIBgOTfoORc83kIagdgcpOEVvSboZw16ez0sJFwWw== Received: from localhost ([::1] helo=lists1p.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1qhuWF-0001oj-19; Sun, 17 Sep 2023 12:21:11 -0400 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 1qhuWD-0001oK-Ko for guix-devel@gnu.org; Sun, 17 Sep 2023 12:21:09 -0400 Received: from mail.webarch.email ([81.95.52.48]) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtps (TLS1.2:ECDHE_RSA_AES_256_GCM_SHA384:256) (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1qhuW6-0008KD-Vg for guix-devel@gnu.org; Sun, 17 Sep 2023 12:21:09 -0400 Received: from [127.0.0.1] (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by localhost (Mailerdaemon) with ESMTPSA id 59E9C1A8D365; Sun, 17 Sep 2023 17:20:49 +0100 (BST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=msavoritias.me; s=20210930; t=1694967659; h=from:subject:date:message-id:to:cc:mime-version:content-type: content-transfer-encoding:content-language:in-reply-to:references; bh=d5ChXBCfSGHV8D9YEVCDDy2+W6SUHl7ndS6S+MnDhn4=; b=QtJTK5njC4wTpBtYQjkRlpmyr7dr0XB45ynvBzV3uWIGtk8bHh/MghX9TbiF+GU0DfKEO6 VH3hS7uDeQs8yw9jAGlhqn07rjwHmjkRozVIN9NU+CahE1Lqq8Jc5DtnOULmGaZ5mTMFLg arfYZZRX88rqvmInrzoFeHnhQFWjRnKutIdN+4EeaKyiRjvdElgZXTBVVhqjTAz92Mw+wR WdWzbVy/q+AFyAztOopTAgzov3IAs0djzYWxUIZ8RcOorOVASDo1NGvvtzZEEmzv4UBlQu BXgWM2aetyMdCvhW7V0KJJjMWTxm8K/xa2/YFMJBwcFL3NHQYR5DcuHqQCFcTQ== Message-ID: Date: Sun, 17 Sep 2023 19:20:48 +0300 MIME-Version: 1.0 User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:102.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/102.15.0 Subject: Re: How can we decrease the cognitive overhead for contributors? Content-Language: en-US To: Liliana Marie Prikler , Ricardo Wurmus Cc: Attila Lendvai , Andreas Enge , Katherine Cox-Buday , guix-devel@gnu.org References: <87sf7o67ia.fsf@elephly.net> <9269133a74e06bfc5ee5bfeee0342ba2f5beaeb1.camel@gmail.com> <87tts44d2y.fsf@elephly.net> <4c85b742e29ebbf7fe3cde3f72961269ec26218c.camel@gmail.com> <87cyyr3zdc.fsf@elephly.net> From: MSavoritias In-Reply-To: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-Last-TLS-Session-Version: TLSv1.3 Received-SPF: pass client-ip=81.95.52.48; envelope-from=email@msavoritias.me; helo=mail.webarch.email X-Spam_score_int: -31 X-Spam_score: -3.2 X-Spam_bar: --- X-Spam_report: (-3.2 / 5.0 requ) BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_INVALID=0.1, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, NICE_REPLY_A=-1.473, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-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 X-Migadu-Scanner: mx1.migadu.com X-Migadu-Spam-Score: 1.19 X-Spam-Score: 1.19 X-Migadu-Queue-Id: 3E4ED43310 X-TUID: x9rshIx1UsCm On 9/10/23 01:20, Liliana Marie Prikler wrote: > Am Samstag, dem 09.09.2023 um 21:40 +0200 schrieb Ricardo Wurmus: >> Liliana Marie Prikler writes: >> >>>> Must we force a single workflow on everyone, even if our track >>>> record in reviewing and merging doesn’t clearly show that our way >>>> is superior? >>> Again, define superior. >> No, I won’t.  I think it’s obvious that our review process isn’t >> working *well*.  So the argument that our current workflow allows for >> effective review is dubious.  Not saying that you made that claim, >> just that it’s hard to convince others of adopting our ways when the >> results just aren’t great. > What do you consider "the results" here? The rate at which patches are > merged? This is hardly an issue our project alone is fighting and I'm > not convinced that technology, more or less, will shift it in either > direction. That's one thing yeah. There are multiple people in the thread pointing out issues with contributing that create friction. Including an committer. And the fact that guix doesn't get have many committers and contributors are scarce, speaks for itself. If you don't see it I suggest asking people in social networks/forums why they *don't* get involved in guix. > Let's take our importers as an example. Bugs aside, they allow us to > bump any package to the newest released version. Naturally, similar > tools have evolved over in the forge world as well. The end result? > Bots are now writing merge request that end up ignored much like there > are bugs in Guix that receive little attention due to what might as > well be unfortunate timing. > > I'm also not sure how we can tie back contribution throughput to > cognitive overhead. In fact, there might well be a Jevons paradox > hiding somewhere in that less overhead per patch means that more > patches can be written, which results in the same overall cognitive > overhead in the long run. > > Now, you are probably right in that our review process probably isn't > working well for some value of well that yet needs to be defined. > However, without any frame of reference it is also a statement that can > neither be verified nor falsified. I could be sitting in a burning > house claiming "this is fine" or sitting in the finest restaurant > claiming "this place sucks" and since you can't see me, there's no way > for you to infer that I'm a cat. > > Cheers > Frame of reference should be what other projects have done. Its not like this hasn't come up before in other projects. For example Debian moved to Gitlab. Same for gnome and kde. I'm not saying we should copy them but we should at least ask "Why?" and how did they come to those conclusions. Then we should also do a survey of people outside of guix that may be interested in it. What stops you from doing so? (spoiler: its the email among other problems :) ) Personally free software means that there shouldn't even be a separation of Dev and user. But that's another topic.