[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: On commit access, patch review, and remaining healthy
From: |
Giovanni Biscuolo |
Subject: |
Re: On commit access, patch review, and remaining healthy |
Date: |
Wed, 15 Jun 2022 17:11:25 +0200 |
Hi Simon,
zimoun <zimon.toutoune@gmail.com> writes:
> On Wed, 08 Jun 2022 at 11:30, Giovanni Biscuolo <g@xelera.eu> wrote:
>
>>> It reduces a bit the pressure on the committers, IMHO.
>>
>> It raises a bit the pressure on the maintainers, IMHO :-)
>
> What does it mean “maintainer” here?
Guix maintainers
> Maybe I miss something but I do not think the Guix maintainers play a
> special role in reviewing or committing.
not directly but they oversee the entire process, no?
> Could you explain which pressure you are envisioning?
it was explained above your quotation in my original message, IMHO this
is the pressure:
--8<---------------cut here---------------start------------->8---
> **automatically** merged every week to the branch “stable” and by
> default user pull “stable”. One week let the time to build by the CI,
> check everything is fine and fix otherwise.
This means that if the fix is not committed (rebased?) in that weekly
timerfame the problematic patch is automatically pushed to stable
without a fix; also we'll have that problematic commit in stable anyway
(affecting users like me that are "pinning" specific channels?), unless
we rebase "unstable"... "manually": am I wrong?
--8<---------------cut here---------------end--------------->8---
IMVHO automatic merges once a week from something /possibly/ not working
to "stable" is not a good solution to the problem of reviwers scarcity
>> I understand there is a certain "entrance barrier" to become patch
>> reviewer, but I'm afraid we cannot lower it more than the current
>> situation except for the offload build server and more tolling options.
>
> I am missing the meaning of «tolling option».
sorry, my intention was to write "tooling options", meaning the range of
tools available to committers/reviewers to automate some tasks
> I think it is possible to lower a bit the reviewing barrier. Today, the
> patch submission is very flexible:
IMHO this is a good thing, it lowers the barrier for new contributors
[...]
> For instance, consider submission #47171 [1].
seen
> It was not my first contribution, it was not the first review by
> Ricardo, and we both missed a “guix pull” breakage despite the fact I
> did “make as-derivation” (and I am not convinced it is systematically
> done ;-)).
as Ludo' was suggesting, maybe we could start with a checklist and then
see what we can automate?
> Another example, when working of Preservation of Guix [2], I noticed
> that many packages using git-fetch were not in SWH; which means that
> “guix lint” had not been run on these packages.
is there any way to force it (along with other linting) when commiting?
> We could answer more automated tools on infra side, etc. which is the
> direction to go. But we are not there yet and things need to be done
> today. :-) That’s why, I think the project should:
>
> 1. change the default branch of “git push” vs the default branch of
> “guix pull”.
sorry I don't understand what this means
> 2. add a bit more of checkers on patch submission easing patch
> review.
I guess you mean "automatic checkers": I agree that checking tools
are good (something is missing in "guix lint"?)
[...]
Thank you! Gio'
--
Giovanni Biscuolo
Xelera IT Infrastructures
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
- Re: Feed on specific topic (public-inbox?), (continued)
- Re: On commit access, patch review, and remaining healthy, Arun Isaac, 2022/06/06
- Re: On commit access, patch review, and remaining healthy, Ludovic Courtès, 2022/06/06
- Re: On commit access, patch review, and remaining healthy, zimoun, 2022/06/07
- Re: On commit access, patch review, and remaining healthy, Giovanni Biscuolo, 2022/06/08
- Re: On commit access, patch review, and remaining healthy, zimoun, 2022/06/14
- Re: On commit access, patch review, and remaining healthy, Arun Isaac, 2022/06/15
- Re: On commit access, patch review, and remaining healthy, Ludovic Courtès, 2022/06/15
- Re: On commit access, patch review, and remaining healthy, Paul Jewell, 2022/06/19
- Re: On commit access, patch review, and remaining healthy, Arun Isaac, 2022/06/20
- Re: On commit access, patch review, and remaining healthy,
Giovanni Biscuolo <=
- Re: On commit access, patch review, and remaining healthy, Giovanni Biscuolo, 2022/06/08
- Re: On commit access, patch review, and remaining healthy, Arun Isaac, 2022/06/09
Re: On commit access, patch review, and remaining healthy, Giovanni Biscuolo, 2022/06/08
- Re: On commit access, patch review, and remaining healthy, Arun Isaac, 2022/06/09
- Re: On commit access, patch review, and remaining healthy, Giovanni Biscuolo, 2022/06/10
- Re: On commit access, patch review, and remaining healthy, Maxime Devos, 2022/06/10
- Re: On commit access, patch review, and remaining healthy, Efraim Flashner, 2022/06/10
- Re: On commit access, patch review, and remaining healthy, Giovanni Biscuolo, 2022/06/10
- Re: On commit access, patch review, and remaining healthy, Giovanni Biscuolo, 2022/06/10
Re: On commit access, patch review, and remaining healthy, Thiago Jung Bauermann, 2022/06/11