From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([2001:470:142:3::10]:43541) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1ioaBN-0007IQ-90 for guix-patches@gnu.org; Mon, 06 Jan 2020 16:45:07 -0500 Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1ioaBK-0007Lx-LB for guix-patches@gnu.org; Mon, 06 Jan 2020 16:45:04 -0500 Received: from debbugs.gnu.org ([209.51.188.43]:40947) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtps (TLS1.0:RSA_AES_128_CBC_SHA1:16) (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1ioaBK-0007LV-Fi for guix-patches@gnu.org; Mon, 06 Jan 2020 16:45:02 -0500 Received: from Debian-debbugs by debbugs.gnu.org with local (Exim 4.84_2) (envelope-from ) id 1ioaBK-0002ku-AX for guix-patches@gnu.org; Mon, 06 Jan 2020 16:45:02 -0500 Subject: [bug#38846] [PATCH 0/4] Move 'HACKING' to the manual, and a proposal for commit access Resent-Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 References: <20200101162945.4946-1-ludo@gnu.org> In-Reply-To: <20200101162945.4946-1-ludo@gnu.org> From: zimoun Date: Mon, 6 Jan 2020 22:44:38 +0100 Message-ID: Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Errors-To: guix-patches-bounces+kyle=kyleam.com@gnu.org Sender: "Guix-patches" To: Ludovic =?UTF-8?Q?Court=C3=A8s?= Cc: GNU Guix maintainers , 38846@debbugs.gnu.org Hi, On Wed, 1 Jan 2020 at 17:31, Ludovic Court=C3=A8s wrote: > 1. Move text from =E2=80=98HACKING=E2=80=99 to =E2=80=98doc/contributin= g.texi=E2=80=99. > > 2. Encourage patch review for committers. > > 3. Add a tentative policy for granting commit access (the last > patch of this series). > > I expect #1 and #2 to be uncontroversial, but I=E2=80=99d like feedback o= n #3! > > So far, we=E2=80=99ve been giving commit access in a very ad-hoc fashion. > Often it was Ricardo or myself who ended up taking care of that, > even though other people have admin rights on Savannah to add/remove > members. > > We briefly discussed it among maintainers after the maintainer > collective expanded, and it seems to me that perhaps now is a good time > to formalize things a bit=E2=80=94to clarify what contributors may expect= and > to increase transparency. Hence this proposal of a simple co-optation > policy. > > As you know, Chris Baines has been working towards automated testing > of submitted patches. One of the goals is to allow part of the > QA to be automated, such that, eventually, approved merges could be > automated. In that spirit, we would have an incentive to not add more > committers (probably also a good thing security-wise). That=E2=80=99s wh= y I > added a note on this topic. > > What do people think? Personally, I find this proposal nice. As I already said when commenting on each patch. :-) However, let point 2 minor weak points for further discussions: a- if the number of committers with access is more or less fixed, then access could be transferred (less active, less time, less motivation, etc.); and b- the bottleneck is the patch review (even if it should be improved in the future with the Guix Data Service). Well, a- is more about human relationship, hard to fix. However, we should work on b- but how? What does it mean "encourage patch review"? Candy or beer at Guix Days? ;-) For example, this patch [1] has fallen in the crack. Or this one [2] or this other one [3]. [1] https://debbugs.gnu.org/cgi/bugreport.cgi?bug=3D31973 [2] https://debbugs.gnu.org/cgi/bugreport.cgi?bug=3D33041 [3] https://debbugs.gnu.org/cgi/bugreport.cgi?bug=3D33318 >From the v1.0.1 to now, the repartition of committers which are not the aut= hors: 361 78 65 61 59 54 52 47 44 43 37 21 (x2) 11 9 8 7 (x2) 6 5 (x3) 4 (x2) 3 2 (x3) 1 (x3) which should be compared to the number of commits per author also committer (first 10): 1463 1162 886 670 618 335 204 166 161 150 --8<---------------cut here---------------start------------->8--- # committer and not the author git log v1.0.1..origin/HEAD --pretty=3Dformat:"%an~%cn" \ | awk -F '~' '{if ($1 !=3D $2) {++cnt; print "#"$2};}' \ | sort \ | uniq -c \ | sort -nr \ | cut -f1 -d'#' --8<---------------cut here---------------end--------------->8--- --8<---------------cut here---------------start------------->8--- # committer and the author git log v1.0.1..origin/HEAD --pretty=3Dformat:"%an~%cn" \ | awk -F '~' '{if ($1 =3D=3D $2) {++cnt; print "#"$2};}' \ | sort \ | uniq -c \ | sort -nr \ | cut -f1 -d'#' | head -n10 --8<---------------cut here---------------end--------------->8--- It is easy to produce more stats, for the example the author time versus the committer time, or the number of newcomers (first commit), or the hour when committing. Do not take me wrong, it is not about blaming but it is about health and how it could be improved. All these numbers show how Guix is healthy. :-) Well, all this comment is about "2. Encourage patch review for committers.". Patch review is about trust, so what could be done to reduce the workload of "committers"? and smooth everything? Team and/or delegate? Formalize "maintainer per field" (R, Lisp, Python, OCaml, maths, etc.)? Obviously without adding too formal stuff. :-) All the best, simon