all messages for Guix-related lists mirrored at yhetil.org
 help / color / mirror / code / Atom feed
From: "Ludovic Courtès" <ludo@gnu.org>
To: zimoun <zimon.toutoune@gmail.com>
Cc: guix-devel@gnu.org
Subject: Incentives for review
Date: Tue, 19 Oct 2021 17:41:23 +0200	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <87mtn56mzg.fsf_-_@inria.fr> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <86k0i9drh5.fsf@gmail.com> (zimoun's message of "Tue, 19 Oct 2021 16:22:30 +0200")

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.

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.

A good middle ground may be to provide incentives for review.  How?  I’m
not sure exactly, but first by making it clear that review is makes the
project move forward and is invaluable.  You once proposed having
‘Reviewed-By’ tags to acknowledge non-committer reviews, and I think
that would be one step in that direction.  Perhaps there are other
things we could do?

[...]

>> I think it’s about finding the right balance to be reasonably efficient
>> while not compromising on quality.
>
> I totally agree.  And I do not see nor understand where is the
> inefficiency here when asking to go via guix-patches and wait two weeks
> for adding a new package.

It’s not about urgency but rather about not contributing to the growth
of our patch backlog, which is a real problem.

Thanks,
Ludo’.

¹ https://oss-security.openwall.org/wiki/mailing-lists/distros


  reply	other threads:[~2021-10-19 16:59 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       ` Ludovic Courtès [this message]
2021-10-19 16:56         ` Incentives for review 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
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=87mtn56mzg.fsf_-_@inria.fr \
    --to=ludo@gnu.org \
    --cc=guix-devel@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.