From: Christopher Baines <mail@cbaines.net>
To: zimoun <zimon.toutoune@gmail.com>
Cc: 59513@debbugs.gnu.org
Subject: [bug#59513] [PATCH] doc: contributing: Tweak the Commit Policy.
Date: Mon, 28 Nov 2022 11:46:47 +0000 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <87tu2jxp41.fsf@cbaines.net> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <86wn7kd0m9.fsf@gmail.com>
[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 3003 bytes --]
zimoun <zimon.toutoune@gmail.com> writes:
> On Thu, 24 Nov 2022 at 08:40, Christopher Baines <mail@cbaines.net> wrote:
>
>>> On Wed, 23 Nov 2022 at 10:49, Christopher Baines <mail@cbaines.net> wrote:
>>>
>>>> +For a minority of changes, it can be appropriate to push them directly
>>>> +without sending them for review. This includes both trivial changes
>>>> +(e.g. fixing typos) but also reverting problomatic changes and
>>> -^
>>>> +addressing regressions.
>
> To be sure you have not missed the typo here. :-)
>
> s/problomatic/problematic
Thanks, I've fixed that locally now.
>> Also, this guidance is very general, and I think it should be applicable
>> to all changes. We already trust people with commit access to know what
>> needs doing, I see this documentation as more about how, so I'd prefer
>> not to try and put a list here.
>
> Yes, we trust people. But a public and explicit policy reinforces the
> trust, IMHO. It also documents what commit access means. It is not
> because people with commit access already know what they need doing that
> all people know, I guess.
I don't disagree that we should make the expectations about
functionality and testing explicit, but I want to see that separate from
the commit policy.
>>> and I would keep the «two weeks» instead of the «one week except».
>>
>> My reason for changing this is that I think waiting two weeks after
>> sending a simple patch is unreasonable. The value from the automated
>> testing will come after one to two days, I just put a week to avoid
>> changing it too much, but maybe the lower bound should be two days.
>
> Who is verifying the impact of a change? :-) Just a recent example to
> fix the ideas. The same situation is happening more than often but not
> that often neither. :-)
...
> My point is: Considering leaf packages, yeah once submitted, the review
> can be fast (couple of days) especially with the new QA. Considering
> all the other packages, who is checking the impact of a change?
>
> Otherwise, we have again and again some broken packages. For sure, the
> QA is helping *a lot* for improving! Well, on one hand, I understand
> the willing to merge faster and, even I am not convinced that from two
> weeks to one week would be detrimental. On the other hand, using Guix,
> I replaced the pressure when running “apt-get upgrade” by an eternal
> annoyance of broken packages popping here or there.
This is going a bit off topic I think.
In general, the direction I'm trying to move the policy in here is one
where more changes get sent to guix-patches rather than getting pushed
straight to the repository.
Checking the impact of changes is important, but you can't do that with
a policy on committing. If however people send changes to guix-patches
prior to pushing, then there's at least a chance that some automatic
"verifying/checking" can take place.
[-- Attachment #2: signature.asc --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 987 bytes --]
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2022-11-28 12:04 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 21+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2022-11-23 10:49 [bug#59513] [PATCH] doc: contributing: Tweak the Commit Policy Christopher Baines
2022-11-23 20:27 ` zimoun
2022-11-24 8:40 ` Christopher Baines
2022-11-24 11:59 ` zimoun
2022-11-28 11:46 ` Christopher Baines [this message]
2022-12-02 9:45 ` Ludovic Courtès
2022-12-01 21:44 ` Ludovic Courtès
2022-12-12 10:33 ` Christopher Baines
2022-12-12 11:47 ` Ludovic Courtès
2022-12-08 11:20 ` [bug#59513] [PATCH v2] " Christopher Baines
2022-12-08 13:53 ` Liliana Marie Prikler
2022-12-12 10:49 ` Christopher Baines
2022-12-12 20:27 ` Liliana Marie Prikler
2022-12-13 14:06 ` Christopher Baines
2022-12-14 0:54 ` Vagrant Cascadian
2022-12-14 10:21 ` Christopher Baines
2022-12-20 10:55 ` Ludovic Courtès
2022-12-17 5:01 ` [bug#59513] [PATCH] " Maxim Cournoyer
2023-01-05 9:12 ` [bug#59513] [PATCH v2] " zimoun
2023-01-11 10:48 ` Christopher Baines
2023-01-11 10:50 ` bug#59513: " Christopher Baines
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=87tu2jxp41.fsf@cbaines.net \
--to=mail@cbaines.net \
--cc=59513@debbugs.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.