From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from mp1.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 SJdpJXXI4GXPGgAA62LTzQ:P1 (envelope-from ) for ; Thu, 29 Feb 2024 19:09:57 +0100 Received: from aspmx1.migadu.com ([2001:41d0:303:e224::]) (using TLSv1.3 with cipher TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 (256/256 bits)) by mp1.migadu.com with LMTPS id SJdpJXXI4GXPGgAA62LTzQ (envelope-from ) for ; Thu, 29 Feb 2024 19:09:57 +0100 X-Envelope-To: larch@yhetil.org Authentication-Results: aspmx1.migadu.com; dkim=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"; dmarc=none ARC-Message-Signature: i=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=yhetil.org; s=key1; t=1709230197; 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:in-reply-to:in-reply-to: references:references:list-id:list-help:list-unsubscribe: list-subscribe:list-post; bh=DDPO0IXHkIhz9XItB8K+QnhWfKBlT+5ia4+jXbQvYqs=; b=AdjOF/chlmdBzx2hn99lMAZuWXLgmw7Q1q70JpjfmI3w+A0vRJLOikzx9rxnU4tXOtudbM tM6vSXOnzd8JCYJ3S5upb/AEY3aNPTbxG+5O3i0JBJdhxXjG9EOPhqvJjbEQkQEqyQCsCJ aq8QeWmXem0ei3tD/LKdCq+ItBmlT+TS3aeIVru2XY+DAMN68G4CalyYCfO4X82+MRom/z VMH10XXiU847BMlA7RK/wInhUKyRUYEaOy4IBbmZrHecfVrx10FaQVJY6lRAfekycRxmbc sLwtCOLSOx1GY3dWQX+Xzej2nR/JhxRUxbeIpYKbkCKvXTctlCl6B0LsgbSvLA== ARC-Authentication-Results: i=1; aspmx1.migadu.com; dkim=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"; dmarc=none ARC-Seal: i=1; s=key1; d=yhetil.org; t=1709230197; a=rsa-sha256; cv=none; b=Fcpcco1gPp/esZgg+a3IpryBNkaoSAX8KEWZDmSU6scsb/mhI2wiMT5uyXjVhKz3Iz4mVr xqcIkJMGm2DDGm9lROxXkxel9dzoDcLcghe55N59S+6FvQhE6PmXiLKVWyy/DTgTO+tG5U nkzRjUY8usJCGlFX/FS8lPZWM9XOQKCbIZnRYZv0HM2JvN5Ek35+QLjQp1zrapmYDhAFTM C+EYlUhcYTtqGW44dCJ6TfEIcuKn+Wnlq27mEMqZfHSStXccBy27W+hOCRRnhXkysKYAGm dMvk9S0xx4hhSwHJWGIkbCRPEZDMJNpBTTCIDsJfpkMi5Mf/ExxTew/jF4CFIw== 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 7AE7212090 for ; Thu, 29 Feb 2024 19:09:57 +0100 (CET) Received: from localhost ([::1] helo=lists1p.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1rfkqX-0005ys-CO; Thu, 29 Feb 2024 13:09:29 -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 1rfkqV-0005yQ-1F for guix-devel@gnu.org; Thu, 29 Feb 2024 13:09:27 -0500 Received: from hera.aquilenet.fr ([185.233.100.1]) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtps (TLS1.2:ECDHE_RSA_AES_256_GCM_SHA384:256) (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1rfkqT-0000kT-0Z for guix-devel@gnu.org; Thu, 29 Feb 2024 13:09:26 -0500 Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by hera.aquilenet.fr (Postfix) with ESMTP id B911814B; Thu, 29 Feb 2024 19:09:21 +0100 (CET) X-Virus-Scanned: Debian amavisd-new at hera.aquilenet.fr Received: from hera.aquilenet.fr ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost (hera.aquilenet.fr [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id n2R2oT-Q9kDW; Thu, 29 Feb 2024 19:09:20 +0100 (CET) Received: from jurong (unknown [IPv6:2001:861:c4:f2f0::c64]) by hera.aquilenet.fr (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id A6E581149; Thu, 29 Feb 2024 19:09:20 +0100 (CET) Date: Thu, 29 Feb 2024 19:09:19 +0100 From: Andreas Enge To: Daniel Littlewood Cc: guix-devel Subject: Re: Guix Days: Patch flow discussion Message-ID: References: <10c82db7-6fc6-4fa0-8213-e207fa54db58@futurile.net> <87ttmaiv1j.fsf@gmail.com> <878r344gvf.fsf@xelera.eu> <18df12a3f1e.bb5785df1534691.5879757396979638482@excalamus.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: Received-SPF: pass client-ip=185.233.100.1; envelope-from=andreas@enge.fr; helo=hera.aquilenet.fr X-Spam_score_int: -18 X-Spam_score: -1.9 X-Spam_bar: - X-Spam_report: (-1.9 / 5.0 requ) BAYES_00=-1.9, 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-Country: US X-Migadu-Flow: FLOW_IN X-Migadu-Scanner: mx12.migadu.com X-Migadu-Spam-Score: -5.77 X-Spam-Score: -5.77 X-Migadu-Queue-Id: 7AE7212090 X-TUID: LF2y0nioCahx Hello Dan, thanks for your thoughts! I think I will restrict my replies to guix-devel to keep them in one place; the following are just my personal opinions. Am Thu, Feb 29, 2024 at 03:41:41PM +0000 schrieb Daniel Littlewood: > Something that is not obvious to me when people refer to reviewing patches, is > whether this is purely a matter of adding new packages to the main guix > channel, or of reviewing changes to the system in general, or both. As a > novice, I can imagine becoming comfortable as a package reviewer much more > quickly than as a reviewer of core patches to the system. Both! And indeed what you write is correct, reviewing packages is easier than services, which is probably easier than other changes. (Personally, I feel confident only with packages.) Of course then people should only review things they are comfortable with. > It's also not obvious to me whether you mean exactly "reviewing a backlog of > existing patches" or additionally "increasing the amount of patches submitted > and applied". I feel like both are probably good things but I can't tell what > you're focussing on exactly. If lots of gems were imported from other repos > like RubyGems and PyPi, which as I understand it is currently a > partly-automatic partly-manual process, would that be considered a win? What > about increasing version coverage among those packages that are covered? The discussion was about the backlog; in particular also about negative feelings by contributors of patches that take a long time to be applied. Of course adding more packages is also a welcome activitiy (but only makes sense if enough of them are applied in the end...). We concentrated on "reviewing" to ease the burden of "committers", since reviewing is open to anybody. > One point brought up here is about tooling. I wonder whether there is any scope > for fully automatic review. I do not think so. Quality is an important aspect of Guix; for instance, we ask for non-marketing descriptions, which would be difficult to test automatically. We already have "guix lint", which does some of the work. And there are fully automated channels such as for CRAN, but which then are potentially of a lesser quality. Notice that "easy" packages are also easy to review; most of the time, there is not much to do about the result of "guix import pypi ...". Things become more tricky when phases need to be added, to understand what is going on, and then I usually also look at comments (or criticise their absence). > I think some people are just scared off socially by the idea of having to join a > meeting in order to learn how to do reviews well. Agreed, there should not be any "having to join a meeting". The idea of organising one comes from the goal of making the activity more social and less boring. Apart from that, you can start today and need not wait for a bug squashing party :) Andreas