From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from mp2.migadu.com ([2001:41d0:303:e224::]) (using TLSv1.3 with cipher TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 (256/256 bits)) by ms8.migadu.com with LMTPS id 2EpkDzMuwWWx9wAAe85BDQ:P1 (envelope-from ) for ; Mon, 05 Feb 2024 19:51:31 +0100 Received: from aspmx1.migadu.com ([2001:41d0:303:e224::]) (using TLSv1.3 with cipher TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 (256/256 bits)) by mp2.migadu.com with LMTPS id 2EpkDzMuwWWx9wAAe85BDQ (envelope-from ) for ; Mon, 05 Feb 2024 19:51:31 +0100 X-Envelope-To: larch@yhetil.org Authentication-Results: aspmx1.migadu.com; dkim=pass header.d=lassieur.org header.s=fm2 header.b="gg/F30i1"; dkim=pass header.d=messagingengine.com header.s=fm3 header.b="W 2Fyejf"; dmarc=none; 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=1707159091; h=from:from:sender:sender:reply-to:subject:subject:date:date: message-id:message-id:to:to:cc: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=W415P7rB1pO5GEUQfQK3dCpAmnFhfouOc82sLGQ7qjk=; b=rVFIMm3It31N/BfV8n1Gg9+TFaEVOiAuetVk2tb7EuSiUHFeUnKgHlt/LX5OuA441vKFJF T4/csWVcDnQ7MrwtyZ1L3NfOlycFQADVPeqnBNYY80WVHSg4EFK65FZTYaJPoruiHYS883 3XbDK8LAlZf5Aqq1bKDYPANk7dx0BadLBpSIaAR3ilSzJtxw9WZ3k4d+5ki+R10hQcpSFf kV7Dxt5gAegT3NfdDsSchNRtpVWB92Zqy2Ewt6tCtrRGuWElomC+bJEHkfHW4HiczbFHbE dp+afXLVHE5SelZb/WP4f1xaeTXJ8v3OcvCt3/vN7Lfz7Xd5xBfp+Z5OtAndhw== ARC-Authentication-Results: i=1; aspmx1.migadu.com; dkim=pass header.d=lassieur.org header.s=fm2 header.b="gg/F30i1"; dkim=pass header.d=messagingengine.com header.s=fm3 header.b="W 2Fyejf"; dmarc=none; 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-Seal: i=1; s=key1; d=yhetil.org; t=1707159091; a=rsa-sha256; cv=none; b=ZTA7NLO2TvMY3f/8bqxavmxEd9+1fe2P9w7vu02jATuergzqhVtOoFudZd/xwLeMDULSzF R9puTEDEMa/DzUN4GhZzNgv6XoMyXZlLZfJK783srECBj3CANZKe+bxSx9KfueC0qN7TUW 22JXEooJEWZmnnN2qt6sY5ico+EnlDJfHSzZQRwBozsrf3DQH3W95AKMFFoArTTsEN+oj7 Ng05Ey6d2TkvAqVRcd5H9HWCZOdJcRqiRwde2iZV2c58txlNwX0ML6k6htH3MtIh1dp128 0gQgoW6kIXNvMSwq3cO+jtPvoLZTaOt2d4WA/zJYn5hEN21d+8ZKzXH7XIjWrA== 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 25D90636F0 for ; Mon, 5 Feb 2024 19:51:30 +0100 (CET) Received: from localhost ([::1] helo=lists1p.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1rX43c-00008I-Bc; Mon, 05 Feb 2024 13:51:06 -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 1rX43X-00007D-Tz; Mon, 05 Feb 2024 13:51:00 -0500 Received: from out4-smtp.messagingengine.com ([66.111.4.28]) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtps (TLS1.2:ECDHE_RSA_AES_256_GCM_SHA384:256) (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1rX43V-0004t1-9W; Mon, 05 Feb 2024 13:50:59 -0500 Received: from compute1.internal (compute1.nyi.internal [10.202.2.41]) by mailout.nyi.internal (Postfix) with ESMTP id ACBDD5C00B4; Mon, 5 Feb 2024 13:50:55 -0500 (EST) Received: from mailfrontend2 ([10.202.2.163]) by compute1.internal (MEProxy); Mon, 05 Feb 2024 13:50:55 -0500 DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=lassieur.org; h= cc:cc:content-transfer-encoding:content-type:content-type:date :date:from:from:in-reply-to:in-reply-to:message-id:mime-version :references:reply-to:subject:subject:to:to; s=fm2; t=1707159055; x=1707245455; bh=W415P7rB1pO5GEUQfQK3dCpAmnFhfouOc82sLGQ7qjk=; b= gg/F30i1m0Ejk5DcN5cYCirknQdCwzGu3bqAJ+9EbbVCiVON1gPTlJ05LKRikGYN pkRUSfpcnlv/pluU3kIBkx8lpIlREbYREHsjlmR1oJ/OS8LX33fPh3HlT5Ws4TmY jqj9t7UZ7xetpeQZ0Aouw4UamuZca+A6ixVsqucOmUPvQtScxwNbcvvlH/UsGwOg vDAReaIzx55hAp8obMUpFZpfPkD+Av182sTqx/+wxm4m0sZV7cGd3HApXy1Jxtzb 44xoOs9WcUrkcvJldDscwJ9QUIhGEUyoP4xh7/OFnA1Iuvk+d6TPp2mNyJEzd/ki bYX5FjPWKpTkOYA+RrFqiQ== DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d= messagingengine.com; h=cc:cc:content-transfer-encoding :content-type:content-type:date:date:feedback-id:feedback-id :from:from:in-reply-to:in-reply-to:message-id:mime-version :references:reply-to:subject:subject:to:to:x-me-proxy:x-me-proxy :x-me-sender:x-me-sender:x-sasl-enc; s=fm3; t=1707159055; x= 1707245455; bh=W415P7rB1pO5GEUQfQK3dCpAmnFhfouOc82sLGQ7qjk=; b=W 2Fyejf9V1/ocD5aOngz4ibrdKgRHBIkTb1CgG7NpL+ov9AYdV/JVknQjv1zwOcy6 Po/hFWaSK9nngYDiGknKfRSQhX+Sqe9vGyR/5Y+X1UtdjpKAcD5zLk1Wl9iUksBp YocYZmHtbZaYwTjCs7difYo+dvLfE2GveoFkqwnVHYJw2/40aR0fwyoD2kWQKqiI dk8zOR6VI977G8QWXLiHthUfoilsOtPOraSFHd7TJ5Q9bb2H8eSWRvLJHsn1R+zZ LICfi4PPnnz5ag5WN2bDzjYGVzliSXcoTf9o+OVS/sWinbWaiO1kyzpsEMtp5rgD 9+NW35pw4V8MAp58vbC6Q== X-ME-Sender: X-ME-Received: X-ME-Proxy-Cause: gggruggvucftvghtrhhoucdtuddrgedvkedrfedvuddgvdehucetufdoteggodetrfdotf fvucfrrhhofhhilhgvmecuhfgrshhtofgrihhlpdfqfgfvpdfurfetoffkrfgpnffqhgen uceurghilhhouhhtmecufedttdenucesvcftvggtihhpihgvnhhtshculddquddttddmne cujfgurhephffvvefujghffffkfgggtgfgsehtqhertddtreejnecuhfhrohhmpeevlhor mhgvnhhtucfnrghsshhivghurhcuoegtlhgvmhgvnhhtsehlrghsshhivghurhdrohhrgh eqnecuggftrfgrthhtvghrnhepgeekheefffdtfeffueevkefgfffhtddugfdugeeugeev gfduteffudfgfefhjedunecuvehluhhsthgvrhfuihiivgeptdenucfrrghrrghmpehmrg hilhhfrhhomheptghlvghmvghntheslhgrshhsihgvuhhrrdhorhhg X-ME-Proxy: Feedback-ID: i4c21472a:Fastmail Received: by mail.messagingengine.com (Postfix) with ESMTPA; Mon, 5 Feb 2024 13:50:54 -0500 (EST) From: =?utf-8?Q?Cl=C3=A9ment_Lassieur?= To: Felix Lechner via Cc: "Felix Lechner via Development of GNU Guix and the GNU System distribution." , Felix Lechner , Steve George Subject: Re: Guix Days: Patch flow discussion In-Reply-To: <87wmri7on9.fsf@lease-up.com> (Felix Lechner via's message of "Mon, 05 Feb 2024 10:27:06 -0800") References: <10c82db7-6fc6-4fa0-8213-e207fa54db58@futurile.net> <87msse9a5q.fsf@lassieur.org> <87zfwe7s6v.fsf@lease-up.com> <87il3295xd.fsf@lassieur.org> <87wmri7on9.fsf@lease-up.com> Date: Mon, 05 Feb 2024 19:50:52 +0100 Message-ID: <87plxabv8z.fsf@lassieur.org> User-Agent: Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Received-SPF: pass client-ip=66.111.4.28; envelope-from=clement@lassieur.org; helo=out4-smtp.messagingengine.com X-Spam_score_int: -27 X-Spam_score: -2.8 X-Spam_bar: -- X-Spam_report: (-2.8 / 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, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-0.7, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H3=0.001, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_WL=0.001, SPF_HELO_PASS=-0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, T_SCC_BODY_TEXT_LINE=-0.01 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-Flow: FLOW_IN X-Migadu-Country: US X-Migadu-Spam-Score: -10.36 X-Spam-Score: -10.36 X-Migadu-Queue-Id: 25D90636F0 X-Migadu-Scanner: mx12.migadu.com X-TUID: 0bvVAc69ee2X On Mon, Feb 05 2024, Felix Lechner via wrote: > On Mon, Feb 05 2024, Cl=C3=A9ment Lassieur wrote: > >> On Mon, Feb 05 2024, Felix Lechner via "Development of GNU Guix and the = GNU System distribution." wrote: >> >> I see no evidence here. And I'm unsure which plan you are talking >> about (the plan?). > > Two people can look at the same thing and reach different conclusions. I > see no evidence that large numbers of non-committers are eager to review > patches. I believe very few people (commiter or not) are eager to review patches. >> What do you mean with "bottom"? > > I'm sorry to put words into your mouth. I meant to quote an executive at > a bank who explained that strategy to me. The word "bottom" was his and > should have been a quote. > > The executive referred to people without the authority to act on behalf > of the group. > > I believe Guix would be better off to delegate responsibility (rather > than competency) by handing out commit access more generously but > imposing limits as to the type of changes a person may make. > > The honor system will work fine. > >> Reviewing !=3D Closing > > Maybe they should be the same. Two people looking at a patch (submitter > and committer) are more efficient than three people, i.e. a submitter, a > reviewer, and a committer. Committers are trusted, and obviously it takes time to be trusted, so not everyone can be at once. Reviewing requires less trust because the committer can do a quick check that everything is in order before submitting the patch. It's less efficient if you compare flows for two patches, but for 1000 patches, it makes it easier to find reviewers, so in the end it's more efficient. > It's one of several bottlenecks at Guix. Another is that committers > should commit what they think is right rather than ask for revised > patches. I sometimes update the commit a little bit before pushing, and then explain what I changed in my email. But if the changes are big, I often believe it makes more sense to ask for a v2. > Please give authorship to the submitter. I think it's the case? Cheers, Cl=C3=A9ment