From debbugs-submit-bounces@debbugs.gnu.org Thu Dec 01 16:44:58 2022 Received: (at 59513) by debbugs.gnu.org; 1 Dec 2022 21:44:58 +0000 Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1]:42124 helo=debbugs.gnu.org) by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.84_2) (envelope-from ) id 1p0rMX-000299-PC for submit@debbugs.gnu.org; Thu, 01 Dec 2022 16:44:58 -0500 Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([209.51.188.92]:51018) by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.84_2) (envelope-from ) id 1p0rMV-000292-Dp for 59513@debbugs.gnu.org; Thu, 01 Dec 2022 16:44:56 -0500 Received: from fencepost.gnu.org ([2001:470:142:3::e]) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtps (TLS1.2:ECDHE_RSA_AES_256_GCM_SHA384:256) (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1p0rML-00052l-3S; Thu, 01 Dec 2022 16:44:48 -0500 DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; q=dns/txt; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gnu.org; s=fencepost-gnu-org; h=MIME-Version:In-Reply-To:Date:References:Subject:To: From; bh=RkFcImS+bjdgL+yqI2xQFQ6NRrf2pV4vlOd2POvKDVo=; b=brhvFcdEHIL2couXhbBz 8NbsdgM4hDDIsYKbSXtUnw6dMK9lPR17hMII93nhPdY4Ax4OgLzeR3tptH93FUN3T8uZ7zXaAwF5F ZNW+kMzk+Om99ScNAn2cR6YbJGSVORQgLv4lghgVgIycyzEAhJ2nO3bpmTdfJ1vRNaV/Ub2ijaFSS YdUvgGnYMIE9lrJBqIg6QSW3Vg+BhivuDRufWrMHfP/AL0N85LswjuauEzVW/jGLKHcinGsZGeDUs U5wkrpXRkY61mHqqBdpeTfY7XO2hCs5mAw/csa6uythAY4UGJSztD3M1gdnv82zB/FgXqfs/Dktso yvRoSvdSGjD5+w==; Received: from 91-160-117-201.subs.proxad.net ([91.160.117.201] helo=ribbon) by fencepost.gnu.org with esmtpsa (TLS1.2:ECDHE_RSA_AES_256_GCM_SHA384:256) (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1p0rMI-0003bT-OV; Thu, 01 Dec 2022 16:44:42 -0500 From: =?utf-8?Q?Ludovic_Court=C3=A8s?= To: Christopher Baines Subject: Re: bug#59513: [PATCH] doc: contributing: Tweak the Commit Policy. References: <20221123104946.29480-1-mail@cbaines.net> Date: Thu, 01 Dec 2022 22:44:40 +0100 In-Reply-To: <20221123104946.29480-1-mail@cbaines.net> (Christopher Baines's message of "Wed, 23 Nov 2022 10:49:46 +0000") Message-ID: <875yeuyf1z.fsf@gnu.org> User-Agent: Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13) Emacs/28.2 (gnu/linux) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable X-Spam-Score: -2.3 (--) X-Debbugs-Envelope-To: 59513 Cc: 59513@debbugs.gnu.org X-BeenThere: debbugs-submit@debbugs.gnu.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.18 Precedence: list List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Errors-To: debbugs-submit-bounces@debbugs.gnu.org Sender: "Debbugs-submit" X-Spam-Score: -3.3 (---) Hi! Christopher Baines skribis: > Add more examples of when it can be appropriate to push changes without > review, as I think this can be appropriate in the case of trivial changes= (as > mentioned before), but also non-trivial fixes. > > No longer suggest pushing simple new packages or package upgrades (that d= on't > cause lots of rebuilds) without sending to guix-patches. Now there's some > automation for testing changes sent to guix-patches, sending changes there > before pushing can mean that more rigerious testing takes place and help = speed > up substitutes becoming available. This is true, even if no human review = takes > place. > > Only suggest waiting one week for review for simpler changes, wait two we= eks > for more significant changes. > > Also, reorder some of the information in this section so it's grouped tog= ether > better. > > * doc/contributing.texi (Commit Policy): Tweak. FWIW I like the spirit of these changes. Now to the letter=E2=80=A6 :-) > @subsection Commit Policy >=20=20 > -If you get commit access, please make sure to follow > -the policy below (discussions of the policy can take place on > +If you get commit access, please make sure to follow the policy below > +(discussions of the policy can take place on > @email{guix-devel@@gnu.org}). >=20=20 > -Non-trivial patches should always be posted to > -@email{guix-patches@@gnu.org} (trivial patches include fixing typos, > -etc.). This mailing list fills the patch-tracking database > -(@pxref{Tracking Bugs and Patches}). > +For a minority of changes, it can be appropriate to push them directly > +without sending them for review. This includes both trivial changes > +(e.g. fixing typos) but also reverting problomatic changes and > +addressing regressions. >=20=20 > -For patches that just add a new package, and a simple one, it's OK to Similar to zimoun=E2=80=99s first comment I think, I would like the beginni= ng of the sentence to clearly tell you whether it=E2=80=99s the situation you=E2= =80=99re interested in. =E2=80=9CFor a minority of changes=E2=80=9D doesn=E2=80=99t= fit the bill in my view. So I would suggest something along the lines of: Changes should be posted to @email{guix-patches@@gnu.org}. This mailing list [=E2=80=A6]. It also allows patches to be picked up and tes= ted by the quality assurance robot; the result of that testing eventually shows up on the dashboard at @indicateurl{https://qa.guix.gnu.org/issue/@var{number}}, where @var{number} is the number assigned by the issue tracker. Leave time [=E2=80=A6] it=E2=80=99s OK to commit. As an exception, some changes considered consensual and ``trivial'' or ``obvious'' may instead be pushed directly. These include: fixing typos, and reverting commits that caused immediate problems. That way we state the general rule first, and the exception next. That also explicitly mentions how that relates to qa.guix. Regarding the list of exceptions, I feel that these two exceptions listed here may be less than what we may except on a day-to-day basis; perhaps there are other things to add there, but I=E2=80=99m not sure what. Would be nice to get feedback from a maintainer too. Thanks for working on this! Ludo=E2=80=99.