[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: Incentives for review
From: |
Vagrant Cascadian |
Subject: |
Re: Incentives for review |
Date: |
Thu, 21 Oct 2021 10:51:07 -0700 |
On 2021-10-19, Ludovic Courtès wrote:
> zimoun <zimon.toutoune@gmail.com> skribis:
>
>> On Tue, 19 Oct 2021 at 14:56, Ludovic Courtès <ludovic.courtes@inria.fr>
>> wrote:
>> One question is “encouragement” for reviewing, somehow. Asking for new
>> package additions to go via guix-patches is a call making kind of
>> equality between contributors. As someone without commit access, I can
>> tell you that it is often demotivating to send a trivial addition, wait
>> forever, ping people (aside I know who I have to ping :-)). Usually, it
>> means people are busy elsewhere, so I try to help to reduce the workload
>> by reviewing stuff or by doing bug triage. However, in the same time, I
>> see committers push their own trivial additions. It appears to me
>> “unfair”.
>
> I understand and sympathize (I also see us slipping off-topic :-)).
>
>> Why are committer’s trivial additions more “urgent” than mine?
>
> Yeah, I see what you mean.
>
> I would like to see us committers do more review work. But I also view
> things from a different angle: everyone contributes in their own way,
> and each contribution is a gift. We can insist on community
> expectations (reviewing other people’s work), but we should also welcome
> contributions as they come.
I must admit, I don't review patches unless they're in an area of
expertise (e.g. u-boot, arm-trusted-firmware, reproducible builds
tooling, etc.); I just don't have sufficient skill with guile to review
arbitrary packages in a meaningful way, other than the most trivial of
packages...
Before I was granted commit access, I *really* appreciated getting
review... but was also frustrated by how long it took to get a
contribution in; having limited time available for guix, spending that
energy checking if something I'd already "finished" was actually merged
was a bit demotivating.
I have added a small number of trivial packages without review; maybe I
shouldn't have... but it was also a bit of a sigh of relief once I could
push directly to no have to get caught up in the waiting game; I had
more time to actually contribute other improvements to guix.
> There’s a balance to be found between no formal commitment on behalf of
> committers, and a strict and codified commitment similar to what is
> required for participation in the distros list¹.
So yeah, it is a quite balancing act!
Would a workflow of pushing to a "wip-pending" branch in guix.git that
then gets merged and/or cherry-picked into master/staging/core-updates
help at all?
A cursory review could commit to "wip-pending", with the
plan/hope/expectation that it would get some other review and/or a
timeout before it gets merged.
I guess it would be hard to avoid having to constantly rebase with the
latest updates... "wip-pending" might just add more work to an already
needs-more-resources process...
live well,
vagrant
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
- Re: Incentives for review, (continued)
- Re: Incentives for review, Arun Isaac, 2021/10/22
- Re: Incentives for review, Jonathan McHugh, 2021/10/22
- Re: Incentives for review, zimoun, 2021/10/22
- Re: Incentives for review, Jonathan McHugh, 2021/10/22
- Re: Incentives for review, zimoun, 2021/10/22
- Re: Incentives for review, Jonathan McHugh, 2021/10/21
- Re: Incentives for review, Arun Isaac, 2021/10/22
- Re: Incentives for review, Jonathan McHugh, 2021/10/22
- Re: Incentives for review, zimoun, 2021/10/21
- Re: Incentives for review, Katherine Cox-Buday, 2021/10/28
- Re: Incentives for review,
Vagrant Cascadian <=
- Re: Incentives for review, Efraim Flashner, 2021/10/24
Re: Tricking peer review, Giovanni Biscuolo, 2021/10/20
patches for new packages proper workflow (Re: Tricking peer review), Giovanni Biscuolo, 2021/10/20
Re: Tricking peer review, Leo Famulari, 2021/10/20
Re: Tricking peer review, Christine Lemmer-Webber, 2021/10/25