all messages for Guix-related lists mirrored at yhetil.org
 help / color / mirror / code / Atom feed
From: Vagrant Cascadian <vagrant@debian.org>
To: "Ludovic Courtès" <ludo@gnu.org>, zimoun <zimon.toutoune@gmail.com>
Cc: guix-devel@gnu.org
Subject: Re: Incentives for review
Date: Thu, 21 Oct 2021 10:51:07 -0700	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <875ytqp8qc.fsf@yucca> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <87mtn56mzg.fsf_-_@inria.fr>

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 2958 bytes --]

On 2021-10-19, Ludovic Courtès wrote:
> zimoun <zimon.toutoune@gmail.com> skribis:
>
>> On Tue, 19 Oct 2021 at 14:56, Ludovic Courtès <ludovic.courtes@inria.fr> wrote:

>> One question is “encouragement” for reviewing, somehow.  Asking for new
>> package additions to go via guix-patches is a call making kind of
>> equality between contributors.  As someone without commit access, I can
>> tell you that it is often demotivating to send a trivial addition, wait
>> forever, ping people (aside I know who I have to ping :-)).  Usually, it
>> means people are busy elsewhere, so I try to help to reduce the workload
>> by reviewing stuff or by doing bug triage.  However, in the same time, I
>> see committers push their own trivial additions.  It appears to me
>> “unfair”.
>
> I understand and sympathize (I also see us slipping off-topic :-)).
>
>> Why are committer’s trivial additions more “urgent” than mine?
>
> Yeah, I see what you mean.
>
> I would like to see us committers do more review work.  But I also view
> things from a different angle: everyone contributes in their own way,
> and each contribution is a gift.  We can insist on community
> expectations (reviewing other people’s work), but we should also welcome
> contributions as they come.

I must admit, I don't review patches unless they're in an area of
expertise (e.g. u-boot, arm-trusted-firmware, reproducible builds
tooling, etc.); I just don't have sufficient skill with guile to review
arbitrary packages in a meaningful way, other than the most trivial of
packages...

Before I was granted commit access, I *really* appreciated getting
review... but was also frustrated by how long it took to get a
contribution in; having limited time available for guix, spending that
energy checking if something I'd already "finished" was actually merged
was a bit demotivating.

I have added a small number of trivial packages without review; maybe I
shouldn't have... but it was also a bit of a sigh of relief once I could
push directly to no have to get caught up in the waiting game; I had
more time to actually contribute other improvements to guix.


> There’s a balance to be found between no formal commitment on behalf of
> committers, and a strict and codified commitment similar to what is
> required for participation in the distros list¹.

So yeah, it is a quite balancing act!


Would a workflow of pushing to a "wip-pending" branch in guix.git that
then gets merged and/or cherry-picked into master/staging/core-updates
help at all?

A cursory review could commit to "wip-pending", with the
plan/hope/expectation that it would get some other review and/or a
timeout before it gets merged.

I guess it would be hard to avoid having to constantly rebase with the
latest updates... "wip-pending" might just add more work to an already
needs-more-resources process...


live well,
  vagrant

[-- Attachment #2: signature.asc --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 227 bytes --]

  parent reply	other threads:[~2021-10-21 17:58 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 63+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
2021-10-15 18:54 Tricking peer review Ludovic Courtès
2021-10-15 22:03 ` Liliana Marie Prikler
2021-10-15 22:28   ` Ryan Prior
2021-10-15 22:45     ` Liliana Marie Prikler
2021-10-15 22:59       ` Ryan Prior
2021-10-18  7:40     ` Ludovic Courtès
2021-10-18 19:56       ` Ryan Prior
2021-10-19  8:39       ` zimoun
2021-10-20 23:03         ` Leo Famulari
2021-10-21  8:14           ` zimoun
2021-10-15 23:13   ` Thiago Jung Bauermann
2021-10-18  7:47     ` Ludovic Courtès
2021-10-18  7:34   ` Ludovic Courtès
2021-10-19  8:36 ` zimoun
2021-10-19 12:56   ` Ludovic Courtès
2021-10-19 14:22     ` zimoun
2021-10-19 15:41       ` Incentives for review Ludovic Courtès
2021-10-19 16:56         ` zimoun
2021-10-19 19:14         ` Ricardo Wurmus
2021-10-19 19:34           ` Christine Lemmer-Webber
2021-10-19 19:50           ` Joshua Branson
2021-10-21 20:03           ` Ludovic Courtès
2021-10-20 21:37         ` Thiago Jung Bauermann
2021-10-21 13:38           ` Artem Chernyak
2021-10-22 20:03             ` Thiago Jung Bauermann
2021-10-23  1:43               ` Kyle Meyer
2021-10-23  3:42                 ` Thiago Jung Bauermann
2021-10-23  7:37                 ` zimoun
2021-10-23 16:18                   ` public-inbox/elfeed -> Maildir bridge (was: Incentives for review) Kyle Meyer
2021-10-24 12:18                   ` Jonathan McHugh
2021-10-21 16:06           ` Incentives for review Ricardo Wurmus
2021-10-21 16:32             ` zimoun
2021-10-22 20:06             ` Thiago Jung Bauermann
2021-10-21 15:07         ` Katherine Cox-Buday
2021-10-21 16:10           ` Ricardo Wurmus
2021-10-21 17:52             ` Katherine Cox-Buday
2021-10-21 18:21             ` Arun Isaac
2021-10-21 19:58               ` Ludovic Courtès
2021-10-21 21:42               ` Ricardo Wurmus
2021-10-22 10:48                 ` Arun Isaac
2021-10-22 11:21                   ` zimoun
2021-10-23  6:09                     ` Arun Isaac
2021-10-22 10:56                 ` Jonathan McHugh
2021-10-22  7:40               ` zimoun
2021-10-22 11:09                 ` Arun Isaac
2021-10-22  8:37               ` Jonathan McHugh
2021-10-22  9:15                 ` zimoun
2021-10-22 10:40                 ` Jonathan McHugh
2021-10-22 11:32                   ` zimoun
2021-10-21 21:18             ` Jonathan McHugh
2021-10-22 10:44               ` Arun Isaac
2021-10-22 11:06               ` Jonathan McHugh
2021-10-21 21:22           ` zimoun
2021-10-28 14:57             ` Katherine Cox-Buday
2021-10-21 17:51         ` Vagrant Cascadian [this message]
2021-10-24 11:47           ` Efraim Flashner
2021-10-20  8:22   ` Tricking peer review Giovanni Biscuolo
2021-10-20  9:10     ` zimoun
2021-10-20  8:29   ` patches for new packages proper workflow (Re: Tricking peer review) Giovanni Biscuolo
2021-10-20 23:09 ` Tricking peer review Leo Famulari
2021-10-21  7:12   ` Ludovic Courtès
2021-10-25 13:09 ` Christine Lemmer-Webber
2021-10-28  8:38   ` Ludovic Courtès

Reply instructions:

You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:

* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
  and reply-to-all from there: mbox

  Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style

* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
  switches of git-send-email(1):

  git send-email \
    --in-reply-to=875ytqp8qc.fsf@yucca \
    --to=vagrant@debian.org \
    --cc=guix-devel@gnu.org \
    --cc=ludo@gnu.org \
    --cc=zimon.toutoune@gmail.com \
    /path/to/YOUR_REPLY

  https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html

* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
  via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line before the message body.
Code repositories for project(s) associated with this external index

	https://git.savannah.gnu.org/cgit/guix.git

This is an external index of several public inboxes,
see mirroring instructions on how to clone and mirror
all data and code used by this external index.