From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from mp1.migadu.com ([2001:41d0:303:e16b::]) (using TLSv1.3 with cipher TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 (256/256 bits)) by ms13.migadu.com with LMTPS id uBY1JDy8cGacUgEA62LTzQ:P1 (envelope-from ) for ; Mon, 17 Jun 2024 22:44:12 +0000 Received: from aspmx1.migadu.com ([2001:41d0:303:e16b::]) (using TLSv1.3 with cipher TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 (256/256 bits)) by mp1.migadu.com with LMTPS id uBY1JDy8cGacUgEA62LTzQ (envelope-from ) for ; Tue, 18 Jun 2024 00:44:12 +0200 X-Envelope-To: larch@yhetil.org Authentication-Results: aspmx1.migadu.com; dkim=fail ("headers rsa verify failed") header.d=systemreboot.net header.s=default header.b=GAkX9e8j; spf=pass (aspmx1.migadu.com: domain of "bug-mumi-bounces+larch=yhetil.org@gnu.org" designates 209.51.188.17 as permitted sender) smtp.mailfrom="bug-mumi-bounces+larch=yhetil.org@gnu.org"; dmarc=fail reason="SPF not aligned (relaxed)" header.from=systemreboot.net (policy=none) ARC-Message-Signature: i=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=yhetil.org; s=key1; t=1718664252; 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:resent-cc: resent-from:resent-sender:resent-message-id:list-id:list-help: list-unsubscribe:list-subscribe:list-post:dkim-signature; bh=qAXaRVa1XLZmKs1Dcu8dVKBEmaraBlN9vmqlXcDf2nQ=; b=Xy5HhO9MDlMBaIMR434XXvFrZwZrsLa6pHqnHU8sHS8H0lnIg0kHZcwNtfFWJ1Qh0O+R7k FbGMITdUoPe0OKy9+oHciTEGHaE3OB7/kULJZbECndp76wAaQmq1Jov+65hUL/318vJMy+ T+IokOtQ9ESNOEPoXMIfbRU73RnJSMQLAHqv/1vjRWP0ihzgpc3U2t3jFuKsRzmizIv3Dm 3BhS0ArNL5svLInlrzfzPYcYx+ytCbc40wJ4R8+cnGaQnH6RkwKffVwlFfjb4tbSp1TMwi vRmviGbMBDrBFgSyS5ZYddZwwUG6ZO8E4OkIsluoz7pSwQ3iYPFjvpy+doc3Fw== ARC-Authentication-Results: i=1; aspmx1.migadu.com; dkim=fail ("headers rsa verify failed") header.d=systemreboot.net header.s=default header.b=GAkX9e8j; spf=pass (aspmx1.migadu.com: domain of "bug-mumi-bounces+larch=yhetil.org@gnu.org" designates 209.51.188.17 as permitted sender) smtp.mailfrom="bug-mumi-bounces+larch=yhetil.org@gnu.org"; dmarc=fail reason="SPF not aligned (relaxed)" header.from=systemreboot.net (policy=none) ARC-Seal: i=1; s=key1; d=yhetil.org; t=1718664252; a=rsa-sha256; cv=none; b=UfnFQTuAgssyvkmqvlTYO+87fcREaMKlUfrBcfOvGw+ZiU3tv60XBpeS576tASxxppjU5w 29ibLnssMbTWmts9tffDkug6EsO68vKIciMQdzNCVizm7xwZfSoW117+sgzNECexO1aW/7 pMp0l9gbW9v1Vy0kc4vf3n8nuSZQxFKUhg4nu8yg+Wh5Rc7L1G5uZ79EXl8DDLoqoWKQqh NfjuqDXGf6XOH9fN6rrS78+EFRRLpAtaP2Bn4XCOMa7ybtRPNlqlefKCoCDWQJq1s8yHvH q+C/cB59PcY4qDoIQQ58CZmG/s19Ep5PcIDxXgWp48VWKFapkW7oV5dne+saHw== 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 C609A6D061 for ; Tue, 18 Jun 2024 00:44:11 +0200 (CEST) Received: from localhost ([::1] helo=lists1p.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1sJL51-0002xr-2O; Mon, 17 Jun 2024 18:44:03 -0400 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 1sJL50-0002xg-3r for bug-mumi@gnu.org; Mon, 17 Jun 2024 18:44:02 -0400 Received: from debbugs.gnu.org ([2001:470:142:5::43]) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtps (TLS1.2:ECDHE_RSA_AES_128_GCM_SHA256:128) (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1sJL4y-0001pj-R1 for bug-mumi@gnu.org; Mon, 17 Jun 2024 18:44:01 -0400 Received: from Debian-debbugs by debbugs.gnu.org with local (Exim 4.84_2) (envelope-from ) id 1sJL50-0001i3-EP for bug-mumi@gnu.org; Mon, 17 Jun 2024 18:44:02 -0400 X-Loop: help-debbugs@gnu.org Subject: bug#71622: mumi CLI client features for review checklists Resent-From: Arun Isaac Original-Sender: "Debbugs-submit" Resent-CC: bug-mumi@gnu.org Resent-Date: Mon, 17 Jun 2024 22:44:02 +0000 Resent-Message-ID: Resent-Sender: help-debbugs@gnu.org X-GNU-PR-Message: report 71622 X-GNU-PR-Package: mumi X-GNU-PR-Keywords: To: 71622@debbugs.gnu.org Cc: Ludovic =?UTF-8?Q?Court=C3=A8s?= , jgart X-Debbugs-Original-To: bug-mumi@gnu.org Received: via spool by submit@debbugs.gnu.org id=B.17186641986497 (code B ref -1); Mon, 17 Jun 2024 22:44:02 +0000 Received: (at submit) by debbugs.gnu.org; 17 Jun 2024 22:43:18 +0000 Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1]:38353 helo=debbugs.gnu.org) by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.84_2) (envelope-from ) id 1sJL4I-0001gj-8t for submit@debbugs.gnu.org; Mon, 17 Jun 2024 18:43:18 -0400 Received: from lists.gnu.org ([209.51.188.17]:47474) by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.84_2) (envelope-from ) id 1sJL4G-0001gb-4O for submit@debbugs.gnu.org; Mon, 17 Jun 2024 18:43:17 -0400 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 1sJL4D-0002qT-DX for bug-mumi@gnu.org; Mon, 17 Jun 2024 18:43:13 -0400 Received: from mugam.systemreboot.net ([139.59.75.54]) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtps (TLS1.2:ECDHE_RSA_AES_256_GCM_SHA384:256) (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1sJL49-0001mM-Um; Mon, 17 Jun 2024 18:43:12 -0400 DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; q=dns/txt; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=systemreboot.net; s=default; h=Content-Transfer-Encoding:Content-Type: MIME-Version:Message-ID:Date:Subject:Cc:To:From:Sender:Reply-To:Content-ID: Content-Description:Resent-Date:Resent-From:Resent-Sender:Resent-To:Resent-Cc :Resent-Message-ID:In-Reply-To:References:List-Id:List-Help:List-Unsubscribe: List-Subscribe:List-Post:List-Owner:List-Archive; bh=qAXaRVa1XLZmKs1Dcu8dVKBEmaraBlN9vmqlXcDf2nQ=; b=GAkX9e8jVSD5T6EAjk7/0zsew1 /8lgzqGsyel08oIh/VuNLFtCngsDCgW6+tujtjw6sjqDbs3PxVqkavsxnVz9Cr548oQk2napFM/5E TQWgxBF4BO5eIDFxPsfCxp9wApI39uH3ZtJ933+kHdOznr4D++P+/0xZYBj3ZY2s86ObwBP6CHsc6 AkeCJ9q3ygZc/CEZw8tUEs5lQ1sOw39qUfTlzvQtJ8miNNQK0CV3+aSWE2AsRz86VSUQeJMLjapIA 0OlHG5+yOpJxvTYjnJjdK60o6BW/7Fzz28P04W+DN3Nn3ztPRAlzQO1WRgeMsMNck9nvV/jgOkrlO eHHAViDA==; Received: from [192.168.2.1] (port=53102 helo=localhost) by systemreboot.net with esmtpsa (TLS1.3) tls TLS_ECDHE_RSA_WITH_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 (Exim 4.96.1) (envelope-from ) id 1sJL0X-0007C5-2d; Mon, 17 Jun 2024 23:39:26 +0100 From: Arun Isaac Date: Mon, 17 Jun 2024 23:42:43 +0100 Message-ID: <87r0cv6vj0.fsf@systemreboot.net> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Received-SPF: pass client-ip=139.59.75.54; envelope-from=arunisaac@systemreboot.net; helo=mugam.systemreboot.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, T_SCC_BODY_TEXT_LINE=-0.01 autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no X-Spam_action: no action X-BeenThere: debbugs-submit@debbugs.gnu.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.18 Precedence: list X-BeenThere: bug-mumi@gnu.org List-Id: "Bug reports for GNU Guix Mumi." List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Errors-To: bug-mumi-bounces+larch=yhetil.org@gnu.org Sender: bug-mumi-bounces+larch=yhetil.org@gnu.org X-Migadu-Country: US X-Migadu-Flow: FLOW_IN X-Migadu-Queue-Id: C609A6D061 X-Migadu-Scanner: mx13.migadu.com X-Migadu-Spam-Score: -5.46 X-Spam-Score: -5.46 X-TUID: TcGU9H5vuypA The mumi CLI must provide features to help go through a review checklist. A system that allows even those without commit access to contribute meaningfully to the review process could be a big win. We can use this issue to brainstorm ideas. One idea could be as follows. # Idea 1 Projects provide a review checklist in their .mumi/config. For example, something like ((review-checklist . (((name . good-commit-message) (description . "Are the commit messages written well= ?") (tag . review-good-commit-message)) ((name . good-synopsis-description) (description . "Are the synopsis and description wri= tten well?") (tag . review-good-synopsis-description)) ((name . tests-run) (description . "Are the package tests being run (if = available)?") (tag . review-tests-run)) [=E2=80=A6])) [=E2=80=A6]) When a reviewer checks one of these items (say the good-commit-message), they run something like $ mumi review --tick good-commit-message and that sets the review-good-commit-message tag on the issue. We could also have a status command like $ mumi review --status that lists the complete checklist with a tick mark by items that have been checked. This system is really a convenience wrapper around tagging. So, it can be searched with something like $ mumi search tag:review-good-commit-message One might however argue that such searching is not very useful. One possible downside is that this ties each project (guix, mumi, etc.) to a single checklist. For example, what about guix patches that are not for packages? Perhaps it is an idea to allow multiple checklists per project. Another downside is that this does not provide for multiple reviewers to review and verify each other's findings. In other words, there is no way for two reviewers to register that they both verified something independently. # Idea 2 A second much simpler idea is to implement templates for `mumi compose'. Projects provide templates under .mumi/templates. For example, $ cat .mumi/templates/review [ ] Are the commit messages written well? [ ] Are the synopsis and description written well? [ ] Are the package tests being run (if available)? Then, when reviewers review something, they compose an email like so $ mumi compose --template review that composes an email with this template. The reviewer puts an 'x' by items they have checked. The downside of this method is that this is just unstructured text. There is no way for mumi to understand what parts of the review checklist have been completed and thus generate useful reports, filtering, etc. Thank you for listening to my brain dump! Suggestions welcome. Cheers! :-)