Re: New review checklist

[Jonathan McHugh]

There is no reference to XML. Nor does it provide any interopabilietie with 
SOAP.
Please stop wasting the mailinglists time with this non XML based hokum, this 
is Guxi.FFSaek.

:)

====================
Jonathan McHugh
indieterminacy@libre.brussels

April 1, 2022 6:15 AM, "Liliana Marie Prikler" <liliana.prikler@gmail.com> 
wrote:

> Dear reviewer,
> 
> in the sequel find the new review checklist, effective immediately. 
> Failure to apply it will result in the confiscation of your machine for
> the purpose of making it usable for continuous integration.
> 
> Happy April Fools
> 
> -----
> 
> So you want to package a
> [ ] C [ ] C++ [ ] C# [ ] Common Lisp [ ] Emacs Lisp [ ] Fortran
> [ ] Guile [ ] Haskell [ ] Java [ ] Javascript [ ] Julia [ ] Nim
> [ ] OCaml [ ] Python [ ] R [ ] Rust [ ] V [ ] Zig [ ] ________
> application/library/________.
> It won't be added to Guix. Here's why it won't.
> 
> You appear to believe that
> [ ] linter warnings can easily be ignored
> [ ] `make check' does not need to succeed
> [ ] nobody will ever want to build your package on
> [ ] x86_64 [ ] i686 [ ] aarch64 [ ] armhf [ ] mips____
> [ ] powerpc____ [ ] riscv__ [ ] ______-mingw32 [ ] the Hurd
> [ ] commit hashes make for good version numbers
> [ ] hard-coding the commit field is a good idea
> [ ] using trivial-build system is a good idea
> [ ] we hard-code
> [ ] invocations of command line tools
> [ ] shared libraries
> [ ] _________
> for fun
> [ ] updating ______ to add your package does not cause a world rebuild
> [ ] committers have nothing better to do than trailing a branch that
> receives _____ commits per day.
> 
> Sadly your patch has/lacks
> [ ] copyright headers
> [ ] changes in other parts of the file
> [ ] indentation
> [ ] speling misstakes
> [ ] new-style inputs
> [ ] propagated inputs
> [ ] a useful synopsis
> [ ] a meaningful description
> [ ] a valid home-page
> [ ] correct licensing information
> [ ] significant improvements over the three other patches adding this  
> package, which themselves are stuck in review hell
> 
> The following technophilosophical objections also apply:
> [ ] the GNU FSDG prohibit _____________________________
> [ ] your package bundles a meaningless copy of
> [ ] ffmpeg
> [ ] v8
> [ ] font-awesome
> [ ] bundler
> [ ] rustc
> [ ] ________
> [ ] your package bootstraps itself using a sparse autoencoder trained
> on /dev/urandom
> [ ] your package is not reproducible thanks to
> [ ] embedded timestamps
> [ ] CPU feature detection during configure/compile time
> [ ] a flaky test suite
> [ ] an evil hack to call rand() inside a constexpr context
> [ ] Guix should not have to carry every fork of suckmore tools
> 
> In conclusion, this is what I think of you:
> [ ] Your patch looks good, but I'm not going to push it.
> [ ] Your patch would need some work, and I'm not going to invest that
> time on your behalf.
> [ ] Your patch is bad and you should feel bad for submitting it.
> [ ] Maintaining this package in your own channel is an adequate
> punishment for writing it.