On 2022-12-08, Christopher Baines wrote:
> Only suggest waiting one week for review for simpler changes, wait two weeks
> for more significant changes.
...
> +Changes should be posted to @email{guix-patches@@gnu.org}.  This mailing
> +list fills the patch-tracking database (@pxref{Tracking Bugs and
> +Patches}).  It also allows patches to be picked up and tested by the
> +quality assurance tooling; the result of that testing eventually shows
> +up on the dashboard at
> +@indicateurl{https://qa.guix.gnu.org/issue/@var{number}}, where
> +@var{number} is the number assigned by the issue tracker.  Leave time
> +for a review, without committing anything (@pxref{Submitting Patches}).
> +If you didn’t receive any reply after one week (two weeks for more
> +significant changes), and if you're confident, it's OK to commit.

My one concern here for things that I tend to work on is
diffoscope... it has such a large dependency graph(?) because it
supports so many file formats, it pulls in quite a lot for the test
suites...

In a week or two of changes between submission and being able to push to
master, I'd worry that you could end up with a diffoscope that wouldn't
build because of changes to one of it's (native-)inputs or whatnot
because of changes to master in the previous week...


That said, overall, I think sending everything through guix-patches is a
good change, even if my lazier self pouts a little at having to deal
with more process for seemingly simple things. :)


live well,
  vagrant