Re: Tricking peer review

[Ludovic Courtès]

Hi,

zimoun <zimon.toutoune@gmail.com> skribis:

> I agree with a minor comment.  From my opinion, not enough patches are
> going via guix-patches and are pushed directly.
>
> For instance, the «Commit policy» section says «For patches that just
> add a new package, and a simple one, it’s OK to commit, if you’re
> confident (which means you successfully built it in a chroot setup, and
> have done a reasonable copyright and license auditing).»
>
> And from my point of view, new packages should *always* go via
> guix-patches, wait 15 days, then push if no remark.  It lets the time
> for the community to chime in.  And if not, it just slows down for 2
> weeks.

Three comments: (1) two weeks for a trivial Python/R/C package (the
“simple one” rule above) can be a lot, (2) committers are by definition
trusted to not mess up and to clean up behind them, and (3) when a
simple package is pushed there’s after-the-fact peer review in practice
(sometimes I reply to guix-commits notifications, for example.)

I think it’s about finding the right balance to be reasonably efficient
while not compromising on quality.

Ludo’.