From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from mp12.migadu.com ([2001:41d0:2:bcc0::]) (using TLSv1.3 with cipher TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 (256/256 bits)) by ms5.migadu.com with LMTPS id CFQFDakkyGMzuwAAbAwnHQ (envelope-from ) for ; Wed, 18 Jan 2023 17:56:09 +0100 Received: from aspmx1.migadu.com ([2001:41d0:2:bcc0::]) (using TLSv1.3 with cipher TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 (256/256 bits)) by mp12.migadu.com with LMTPS id kFD0DKkkyGPXgQAAauVa8A (envelope-from ) for ; Wed, 18 Jan 2023 17:56:09 +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 DCEC433C21 for ; Wed, 18 Jan 2023 17:56:08 +0100 (CET) Received: from localhost ([::1] helo=lists1p.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1pIBih-0001t7-VB; Wed, 18 Jan 2023 11:55:28 -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 1pIBif-0001st-Ul for guix-devel@gnu.org; Wed, 18 Jan 2023 11:55:26 -0500 Received: from mail-40134.protonmail.ch ([185.70.40.134]) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtps (TLS1.2:ECDHE_RSA_AES_256_GCM_SHA384:256) (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1pIBid-0003IU-8b for guix-devel@gnu.org; Wed, 18 Jan 2023 11:55:25 -0500 Date: Wed, 18 Jan 2023 16:54:58 +0000 DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=protonmail.com; s=protonmail3; t=1674060911; x=1674320111; bh=zmIoqHXoPyODFquGkVChp+bXksFAalr/os7t9KKrFxk=; h=Date:To:From:Subject:Message-ID:In-Reply-To:References: Feedback-ID:From:To:Cc:Date:Subject:Reply-To:Feedback-ID: Message-ID:BIMI-Selector; b=g2gnbfvl+oZDY1iZYDqHcWWLlyfeYEtq2oJ4N1yXf0I1RSFIQCpHM+tYI/r3NO+0m SbZIN9cqyc0WkJlC1sD8B90zOU4Sys6MCKnTIirkL0XHx7IIksIH+w8IE78gobhexm AuTpapDGuqOrMsZr8ixlcAQCxM98L87aXizX7n1NYHRyaWfcsPhKYQcFHnwDzUScx9 ttI/o2lFHcENYg+0xYt8saXgHX1HE/6rGkv3dY4fFBfLX8SmQVN9xI3qCe7sAmzT6t F1AIO87o9zEMyqZmhuBxHDtwJjvsIGGdCW1f9RpA8UQ1ot9yxuDf49x0LA1Tty1eoE fDDo9aUY225WQ== To: guix-devel@gnu.org From: Kaelyn Subject: Re: Proposed changes to the commit policy (#59513) Message-ID: In-Reply-To: <87k01k2ef5.fsf@cbaines.net> References: <87cz8no0a0.fsf@cbaines.net> <874jsq40cj.fsf@cbaines.net> <87k01k2ef5.fsf@cbaines.net> Feedback-ID: 34709329:user:proton MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Received-SPF: pass client-ip=185.70.40.134; envelope-from=kaelyn.alexi@protonmail.com; helo=mail-40134.protonmail.ch 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, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H2=-0.001, SPF_HELO_PASS=-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-Country: US X-Migadu-Flow: FLOW_IN ARC-Seal: i=1; s=key1; d=yhetil.org; t=1674060968; a=rsa-sha256; cv=none; b=Zz2rfsxiPV1x5QUnuWug7u5hp5xRRnSnuoayHHdN1UEFN0Br3BV6jn0F6nLkpoiI82vvVL hq3btO+SbOJ5Anzpaon7MTiUU2i/E/f98bwRP8X5wG0DDRLr3s1sJBxGJNHADcdgMqolKn jcZtu7WJBri+2Ia4UANAIL6tR1XAexPFtN3yor7jMF4RnqMo05fhvtGLeyIiDMRBQwVO9K mDsS3g7HPbFLg2fXN/eLTxZlgN/vbBXVYkpk/1aksGfkE5jXNqJ8kQ2cgCcjAeK7akjIA0 2OUPbHs74uN+QlaZVQ85GqtuV5WRqyfb2NIkTckATOcQcMlB32/v+qslMb8quQ== ARC-Authentication-Results: i=1; aspmx1.migadu.com; dkim=pass header.d=protonmail.com header.s=protonmail3 header.b=g2gnbfvl; dmarc=pass (policy=quarantine) header.from=protonmail.com; 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" ARC-Message-Signature: i=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=yhetil.org; s=key1; t=1674060968; 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: 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=zmIoqHXoPyODFquGkVChp+bXksFAalr/os7t9KKrFxk=; b=ehGjaL10tYLlbJUqCYR2Fru5sEUrslXubg8QAtOsAuwh0rSqGzQuQooOo05oBK5Tv4X205 BMMiFGyy8Wglt8qGbQwDC9DOJJPII2qTFDO4SmKcGSIGoeXRcga5yi4uDHOC0BppRtwvZM gVhKQq1E3O1Ei19fzXwfKQuNYuzILALvv/cfiHzhrmkMyImevcmAlECUolgzlE0TrtnuWb NpUAHvJhJkpnY1a3bvp5flSKKTs+Bl/ZxbYcyxwBX948+DxYOfL8PYik3yZfgqNel1PCWm SKdDlbDZ39OD6K2NiFYrSMI5PxkfwjcAFGCo+w/WwP2kw68vjKAuYbzGUfVkFw== X-Spam-Score: -6.33 X-Migadu-Queue-Id: DCEC433C21 Authentication-Results: aspmx1.migadu.com; dkim=pass header.d=protonmail.com header.s=protonmail3 header.b=g2gnbfvl; dmarc=pass (policy=quarantine) header.from=protonmail.com; 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" X-Migadu-Scanner: scn0.migadu.com X-Migadu-Spam-Score: -6.33 X-TUID: bwnnmMQ8Btm8 ------- Original Message ------- On Wednesday, January 18th, 2023 at 11:45 AM, Christopher Baines wrote: >=20 > Andreas Enge andreas@enge.fr writes: >=20 > > Hello, > >=20 > > Am Mon, Jan 16, 2023 at 09:47:06PM +0000 schrieb Christopher Baines: > >=20 > > > I merged the changes a few days ago, so this is just a quick message = to > > > say that the commit policy has changed. You can read the updated poli= cy > > > here: > > > https://guix.gnu.org/en/manual/devel/en/html_node/Commit-Access.html#= Commit-Policy > >=20 > > as a quick concrete question: Do simple package updates still count as > > trivial, or do they need to go through the patches mailing list? > > I intended to update pari-gp from 2.15.1 to 2.15.2, as usual by checkin= g > > that all dependent packages still compile. Having to fiddle with debbug= s > > is somewhat deterring (although admittedly having qa compile all depend= ent > > packages is also a service in a context where I do not expect problems)= . >=20 >=20 > My feeling on this is that "simple" package updates are often not > trivial, or at least doing rigorous testing for these updates isn't > trivial. A definition of trivial might be "having little value or > importance", and I don't think that's generally the case for version > updates, they're often a valuable and important change. >=20 > That's not to say that the policy doesn't allow for pushing the pari-gp > update directly to the master branch. I think the wiggle room in the > policy is given by the "should" instruction regarding posting to > guix-patches@gnu.org and the "This is subject to being adjusted, > allowing individuals to commit directly on non-controversial changes on > parts they=E2=80=99re familiar with." bit. >=20 > As you say, my hope is that having parts of the quality assurance > testing automated, e.g. compiling the updated version of para-gp and > affected packages on supported architectures will be something people > want to use, rather than feeling forced to. >=20 > > In case the answer is that submitting to the patch tracker is required, > > I would suggest to shorten the waiting period from one week to zero > > (meaning that it is okay to push when there are no problems detected by= qa, > > without having to wait for human review that has no reason to occur). >=20 >=20 > That seems reasonable to me, at least in the case of package > updates. Given that's such a common change, maybe that needs handling > specifically in the commit policy. >=20 > > I would also like to update mpfr and mpc in core-updates. The documenta= tion > > mentions the different branches under Step 9: > > https://guix.gnu.org/en/manual/devel/en/html_node/Submitting-Patches.ht= ml > > but how is this specified in the email to the patch tracker, > > so that qa applies the patch to the correct branch? >=20 >=20 > That's not something that's attempted yet, all patches are just applied > to master. Maybe setting out the subject like this [1] could indicate > the intended branch? I'm not sure what flags to pass to git > format-patch/send-email to achieve that though. On a side note, I'd recently discovered the flag to pass. To have a subject= prefix like "[PATCH core-updates]" (as mentioned in the manual for staging= and core-updates patches) instead of the default "[PATCH]", one can pass "= --subject-prefix=3D"PATCH core-updates" to git format-patch. Cheers, Kaelyn >=20 > 1: https://issues.guix.gnu.org/55227