From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from mp1 ([2001:41d0:2:bcc0::]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) by ms0.migadu.com with LMTPS id +Oj4Alu5Y2CYSgEAgWs5BA (envelope-from ) for ; Wed, 31 Mar 2021 01:50:51 +0200 Received: from aspmx1.migadu.com ([2001:41d0:2:bcc0::]) (using TLSv1.3 with cipher TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 (256/256 bits)) by mp1 with LMTPS id WBCROFq5Y2BlYgAAbx9fmQ (envelope-from ) for ; Tue, 30 Mar 2021 23:50:50 +0000 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 7F5319640 for ; Wed, 31 Mar 2021 01:50:50 +0200 (CEST) Received: from localhost ([::1]:46706 helo=lists1p.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1lRO8H-0001Hv-28 for larch@yhetil.org; Tue, 30 Mar 2021 19:50:49 -0400 Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([2001:470:142:3::10]:56676) by lists.gnu.org with esmtps (TLS1.2:ECDHE_RSA_AES_256_GCM_SHA384:256) (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1lRO87-0001Hc-1g for guix-devel@gnu.org; Tue, 30 Mar 2021 19:50:39 -0400 Received: from mail.zaclys.net ([178.33.93.72]:56421) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtps (TLS1.2:ECDHE_RSA_AES_256_GCM_SHA384:256) (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1lRO84-00050g-8w for guix-devel@gnu.org; Tue, 30 Mar 2021 19:50:38 -0400 Received: from guix-xps.local (lsl43-1_migr-78-195-19-20.fbx.proxad.net [78.195.19.20] (may be forged)) (authenticated bits=0) by mail.zaclys.net (8.14.7/8.14.7) with ESMTP id 12UNoVKQ006206 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 bits=256 verify=NO); Wed, 31 Mar 2021 01:50:31 +0200 DMARC-Filter: OpenDMARC Filter v1.3.2 mail.zaclys.net 12UNoVKQ006206 Authentication-Results: mail.zaclys.net; spf=fail smtp.mailfrom=lle-bout@zaclys.net DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=zaclys.net; s=default; t=1617148232; bh=3ZWWvOcJ4G04R2B5Jgw2s8Yj87eIIviNlEqTtJYkPs8=; h=Subject:From:To:Cc:Date:In-Reply-To:References:From; b=f7ALaby3LywvVIDWaNPi35gY0XROtVfRI4GOWpUHccBWYVJhkIqZQ9+i+Zo+J5zOC AanLe05NfTbrJRdbQBowinHV49Q0mzT5JunFhMQbLg90cKxnB1MtqDSda2J75u/B8G Vxoiq+m6eNqardUEvJDwyt9Wzz9oIF6+j/5CiTa4= Message-ID: Subject: Re: GNOME 40 work should be done on Savannah (was: Re: GNOME 40) From: =?ISO-8859-1?Q?L=E9o?= Le Bouter To: Mark H Weaver , Christopher Baines Cc: guix-devel@gnu.org Date: Wed, 31 Mar 2021 01:50:26 +0200 In-Reply-To: <87blb12ldu.fsf@netris.org> References: <0323e477b9226759445ad7c58bad134fcff4bc40.camel@zaclys.net> <878s67dmwn.fsf@netris.org> <878s669zqf.fsf@cbaines.net> <87eefx36ni.fsf@netris.org> <35efe3776747ef36d6eec350843428fa0abf22fd.camel@zaclys.net> <87blb12ldu.fsf@netris.org> Content-Type: multipart/signed; micalg="pgp-sha512"; protocol="application/pgp-signature"; boundary="=-P4yMh2J+zQ5fLrRjRtM4" User-Agent: Evolution 3.34.2 MIME-Version: 1.0 Received-SPF: pass client-ip=178.33.93.72; envelope-from=lle-bout@zaclys.net; helo=mail.zaclys.net X-Spam_score_int: -20 X-Spam_score: -2.1 X-Spam_bar: -- X-Spam_report: (-2.1 / 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, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001 autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no X-Spam_action: no action X-BeenThere: guix-devel@gnu.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.23 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" X-Migadu-Flow: FLOW_IN ARC-Message-Signature: i=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=yhetil.org; s=key1; t=1617148250; 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:dkim-signature; bh=3ZWWvOcJ4G04R2B5Jgw2s8Yj87eIIviNlEqTtJYkPs8=; b=CWkPRwodWlJb/hgmhEiVKBx/Zu9mpwaqVRgLcqEIzsoB2LD6nLX5NhzaEgdh0bxBvdxt13 8WLuTAWXRNRHMJJxW69AmM19xf9Rq3SEK3bW3aUk0Sr5UI0yVg+Wmc6o7rzpvixTQU+8Qw vRQWQG4mjV9q/pK9rwFDq6UJFRQiAX6/vp6wZ2dsze3sg7vnT4xLBbWaWBwCoS6Lc3bkQU iShRhiHaeubmS6drf/QKUwaK9Ze+ePh0Hc2Z7wW4q115BowMmLVLbRAtqW2MwakgJbUOUm ULI4zxZF/PyH4SuQGCtKw6dabtRYyA6nDmCaZNRBqzo49Sr7twVbxKXMRPGb8g== ARC-Seal: i=1; s=key1; d=yhetil.org; t=1617148250; a=rsa-sha256; cv=none; b=KW3iUNP+xOpA5whnni7TYkbDUwJ/g1KV8TSVD64p+bo65GHpIEc9kQpoZQwLw40PYIHmW/ 5YwcQfcoWJOytA19hx7OXk02vMP5kRfb4aWlzNT3dEEf7R/4iK8i8gMdMZcFqDyLgx5GuU nJG1tTzzUTF8Kru0bC1VZLzuo3Wr4QOAD0Hr1DzXx/w+Fxk+rCbGlzLxxiUWa1F5wxWQo5 jpBEYKybr5Ybti67ZW5QQ6HSghxEpPaTHFArPdczUfQSsTl0XuAIXnRCy3TMmcTG7YOyrp rQEq+liNNkWWcXRmeXe//o7cxdNpRcv9doNLq/a2dYZ+1+GCJWX96344QxnG6A== ARC-Authentication-Results: i=1; aspmx1.migadu.com; dkim=pass header.d=zaclys.net header.s=default header.b=f7ALaby3; dmarc=pass (policy=reject) header.from=zaclys.net; spf=pass (aspmx1.migadu.com: domain of guix-devel-bounces@gnu.org designates 209.51.188.17 as permitted sender) smtp.mailfrom=guix-devel-bounces@gnu.org X-Migadu-Spam-Score: -5.22 Authentication-Results: aspmx1.migadu.com; dkim=pass header.d=zaclys.net header.s=default header.b=f7ALaby3; dmarc=pass (policy=reject) header.from=zaclys.net; spf=pass (aspmx1.migadu.com: domain of guix-devel-bounces@gnu.org designates 209.51.188.17 as permitted sender) smtp.mailfrom=guix-devel-bounces@gnu.org X-Migadu-Queue-Id: 7F5319640 X-Spam-Score: -5.22 X-Migadu-Scanner: scn0.migadu.com X-TUID: lLci7Xu4xc7C --=-P4yMh2J+zQ5fLrRjRtM4 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable On Tue, 2021-03-30 at 02:41 -0400, Mark H Weaver wrote: > Sorry, but that's simply false. You _do_ have a choice. You can do > what we've been doing in the Guix community for years: as a > committer, > _you_ can commit the work of non-committers on their behalf. If not > you, then any of the other ~64 Guix committers can do so. >=20 > Needless to say, before committing, you must review the proposed > patches, for the sake of your reputation. The fact that you must do > this is a *feature*, not a bug. Nobody is talking about skipping the review process, as I said, it's just about collaborating over git rather than with patches (good for little patches but very troublesome for larger patchsets) > No one is "barred" from contributing. Raghav and many others without > commit access have been successfully contributing to Guix for years. >=20 > I understand that it's inconvenient. Naturally, you would like to > eliminate that inconvenience. >=20 > The thing is, the work of non-committers *must* be reviewed at some > point, anyway. Moreover, a committer must take responsibility by > digitally signing it. To eliminate either of these steps would put > us > at risk. >=20 > There's no guarantee that the work of Guix committers will be > reviewed > by anyone else, because no one else's reputation is on the > line. Some > of us try to keep an eye on things, but I would not bet on that > oversight being comprehensive. I'm certainly not doing it > comprehensively. >=20 > With this in mind, I think that we *should* have a high standard for > committers. The security of our systems, as well as Guix's > reputation > as a project, depends upon the good judgment of _every_ Guix > committer. >=20 > Observe what can happen with projects that are too lax: >=20 > =20 > https://arstechnica.com/gadgets/2021/03/buffer-overruns-license-violation= s-and-bad-code-freebsd-13s-close-call/ >=20 I don't think we are on the same page. > Upgrading GNOME is not trivial. It will be a large patch set. A > large > patch set presented to guix-patches when the branch is ready to merge > is > far less likely to get careful review than if the review is done a > few > commits at a time. That's because, at any given time, it's easier to > find Guix developers with a few minutes available to carefully review > a > small handful of commits, than to find developers prepared to review > a > non-trivial branch merge. If they're reviewed at all, reviews of > larger > code drops are more likely to be superficial. We also go by steps and review things as they appear with Raghav, collaborating over git is just easier than exchanging patches for testing/review back&forth. > * * * >=20 > In summary: it seems to me that working in an external repository > with a > larger set of committers would not actually save time, because it > would > merely postpone the required review work until the end of the process > when the branch is ready to be merged into Savannah. Moreover, it > would > likely reduce the quality of that review work. >=20 > Does that make sense? Not to me, the git vector is just a way to collaborate more easily but things would still get reviewed (in smaller patchsets if necessary also) before getting merged. > Regards, > Mark L=C3=A9o --=-P4yMh2J+zQ5fLrRjRtM4 Content-Type: application/pgp-signature; name="signature.asc" Content-Description: This is a digitally signed message part Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- iQIzBAABCgAdFiEEFIvLi9gL+xax3g6RRaix6GvNEKYFAmBjuUIACgkQRaix6GvN EKa4Yg//VUw+rLAxxz0EhLBzHap3cn7eMx0i5YUXV7z9x7u4GlA0tomsWvY0V+VR arGxfv/HMzAZUHU64WvFoNt5nAiCz6WRnFslozjvtMpvonkD26uhJaxWdyUXL3uU djrv8GZt+UW4yr38ZOjiPHvYMZMGcS5svXMHL6Ii3rtVgTLq5555qpzS3b87M0Da BKYayRmld6AhjXkoq9s0NnUDIKT0ybDOrawF5JCDOslnr2o89hCtOPrlvgEOE6Xg bNxglDhAoqIHXkIEDBevfRCowFSGaTlpUr+C1ZfU08HooZyv4clRn7TEgkiWfuik kRD3Z/ZIJFJ/qbxa6RU/xXemWJVIHSEKRBsQInaGCpMU0CzWpCjGZ7C6uN+2wzFN DhuKayFstRF4XTxEeL8UhcT703FMqLIRVWeY+NCcAmfmj9+/mUD67jMwFlbPLmXv ms81tz/4na+hpQdsYKlVNPqOAcc6IT1mOzVO57c8zK39e4DwYL6aFnbF1jcAOpiQ ISrVtS2N0dr7sxs9ggNLRi6SJr7Tr/CgUnUms/ISDLzIQZSoEMXSMFnBYcrETNyb xpxZ0tNAt2LzZBYfYhrlYqqU/O+Twa7RmSEqeHnK7vR0T85t+WU4ADhr50kyInXM TCzLovgsf1qFNG/Jlqx7fF1O+apjRLifwKBfn7Mt3aVrCfQcV/U= =Nr+d -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --=-P4yMh2J+zQ5fLrRjRtM4--