From: "Ludovic Courtès" <ludo@gnu.org>
To: Maxime Devos <maximedevos@telenet.be>
Cc: Tobias Kortkamp <tobias.kortkamp@gmail.com>, guix-devel@gnu.org
Subject: Dealing with upstream issues
Date: Mon, 27 Jun 2022 12:10:12 +0200 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <87r13aifi3.fsf_-_@gnu.org> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <b6d482002f7773e65e02dbbbf354e1c0178b823a.camel@telenet.be> (Maxime Devos's message of "Fri, 24 Jun 2022 23:41:49 +0200")
Hi Maxime,
(Moving to guix-devel; starting point at
<https://issues.guix.gnu.org/55541#3>.)
Maxime Devos <maximedevos@telenet.be> skribis:
>> That said, I think it’s a bit too much to ask of a downstream packager
>> or user to address these issues. As I see it, these issues should be
>> reported upstream and addressed upstream.
>>
>> I hope that makes sense!
>
> AFAICT the issues have not been reported upstream yet, so I don't think
> we can close this entry on debbugs yet. While I'd like for downstream
> packaging to be trivial, the sad reality is that sometimes is not the
> case, the issues are still there and need to be resolved somehow (fixed
> downstream or upstream, or reported upstream).
>
> If not by the new downstream packager that submitted the patch, then by
> the the one committing the patch, or by a reviewer, or by some more
> neboluous role of a random Guix contributor, or in some exceptional
> cases the issue could be considered ‘too difficult and not too bad’
> with some corresponding reasoning. (It's most efficient if the
> reporting or fixing is done directly by the submitter, but if the
> submitter can't do it for whatever reason, then surely something can
> eventually be worked out by other people, albeit more slowly.)
>
> However, AFAICT, none of that has happened yet.
>
> More generally, I don't think we should have an ‘packages included in
> Guix should be good, unless submitted by a newbie’ exception. Also,
> potentially the new submitter would _like_ to learn more about Guix
> (and have time for it, etc.) and learn how to improve things?
>
> In the future, if someone submits a patch and I notice it has some
> complicated problems, should I just ignore the complicated problems and
> just LGTM? This seems contrary to the concept of reviewing to me.
> (This is probably not what you meant, but to me, this is implied by
> your response.)
You did thorough review work and pointed at valid issues, thanks for
doing that.
Those issues are upstream issues, in that they’re not Guix-specific.
For instance, that ./configure runs binaries effectively prevents
cross-compilation, whether in Guix or not; that code potentially
violates C99 strict-aliasing rules is also not Guix-specific.
My view is that such issues should be reported upstream but cannot alone
block package adoption in Guix.
Regarding the review process, I think we should strive for a predictable
process—not requesting work from the submitter beyond what they can
expect. Submitters can be expected to follow the written rules¹ and
perhaps a few more rules (for example, I don’t think we’ve documented
the fact that #:tests? #f is a last resort and should come with a
comment). However, following that principle, we reviewers cannot
reasonably ask for work beyond that. Upholding this principle makes
sure submitters can have a good picture of what it will take for their
work to be included.
Related to that, I think it’s important to have a consistent review
process. In other words, we should be equally demanding for all patches
to avoid bad surprises or a feeling of double standard.
I hope this clarifies my view!
Thanks,
Ludo’.
¹ https://guix.gnu.org/manual/devel/en/html_node/Submitting-Patches.html
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2022-06-27 10:13 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 31+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2022-05-20 11:18 [bug#55541] [PATCH] gnu: Add azpainter Tobias Kortkamp
2022-05-20 16:00 ` Maxime Devos
2022-06-24 20:56 ` bug#55541: " Ludovic Courtès
2022-06-24 21:41 ` [bug#55541] " Maxime Devos
2022-06-27 10:10 ` Ludovic Courtès [this message]
2022-06-27 10:30 ` Dealing with upstream issues Maxime Devos
2022-06-27 10:37 ` Maxime Devos
2022-06-27 12:32 ` zimoun
2022-06-27 14:20 ` Maxime Devos
2022-06-27 15:06 ` zimoun
2022-06-27 15:41 ` Maxime Devos
2022-06-28 11:01 ` zimoun
2022-06-28 12:21 ` Maxime Devos
2022-06-28 16:21 ` zimoun
2022-06-28 16:47 ` Maxime Devos
2022-06-28 17:36 ` zimoun
2022-06-28 20:03 ` Maxime Devos
2022-06-28 12:22 ` Maxime Devos
2022-06-28 12:31 ` Maxime Devos
2022-06-28 16:25 ` zimoun
2022-06-28 16:47 ` Maxime Devos
2022-06-29 6:07 ` bokr
2022-06-29 7:29 ` Missing tags in Debbugs? zimoun
2022-06-29 13:45 ` Bengt Richter
2022-06-30 11:53 ` Dealing with upstream issues Ludovic Courtès
2022-06-27 12:53 ` zimoun
2022-06-27 14:32 ` Maxime Devos
2022-06-27 15:23 ` zimoun
2022-06-27 15:47 ` Maxime Devos
2022-06-27 16:03 ` Maxime Devos
2022-06-27 16:14 ` Maxime Devos
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=87r13aifi3.fsf_-_@gnu.org \
--to=ludo@gnu.org \
--cc=guix-devel@gnu.org \
--cc=maximedevos@telenet.be \
--cc=tobias.kortkamp@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.