Re: Guix Days: Patch flow discussion

[Tomas Volf]

On 2024-02-05 09:07:05 -0500, Leo Famulari wrote:
> However, I think the question assumes that all contributions should be 
> accepted, and that the entire problem is that we are not accepting them 
> efficiently enough. We should not unconsciously accept this assumption.
>
> Guix can reject contributions, either in a general way (we don't want that 
> type of thing in Guix), or due to specific reasons (the code is not 
> idiomatic, the contributor can't work effectively with the rest of the group, 
> etc).

And I believe that is fine and completely within the rights of the committers.
However, in my experience contributing, the issue is not that people explicitly
tell me to go away, but that the patches are just ignored.

I would say that the outcome (for any specific patch) from the proposed "review
session" can very well be patch just being closed, or tagged as "need-more-work"
(or whatever tag is Guix using).

In ideal world, there would always be *some* reaction from the project, even if
that reaction would be "we do not want this change".  Even if it would be just
an auto-close (for the "contributor can't work effectively..." case).

Or, to put it in a different way: The problem is not that too few patches get
merged.  The problem is that too few patches get reviewed.

Have a nice day,
Tomas Volf

--
There are only two hard things in Computer Science:
cache invalidation, naming things and off-by-one errors.

signature.asc
Description: PGP signature