From debbugs-submit-bounces@debbugs.gnu.org Wed Mar 01 12:31:20 2023 Received: (at 61894) by debbugs.gnu.org; 1 Mar 2023 17:31:20 +0000 Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1]:54813 helo=debbugs.gnu.org) by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.84_2) (envelope-from ) id 1pXQIR-00033Z-Mb for submit@debbugs.gnu.org; Wed, 01 Mar 2023 12:31:20 -0500 Received: from mira.cbaines.net ([212.71.252.8]:42330) by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.84_2) (envelope-from ) id 1pXQIQ-00033R-5M for 61894@debbugs.gnu.org; Wed, 01 Mar 2023 12:31:18 -0500 Received: from localhost (unknown [IPv6:2a02:8010:68c1:0:3a91:a0a4:ecee:f157]) by mira.cbaines.net (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 2BEF816C38; Wed, 1 Mar 2023 17:31:17 +0000 (GMT) Received: from felis (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by localhost (OpenSMTPD) with ESMTP id b6931dec; Wed, 1 Mar 2023 17:31:16 +0000 (UTC) References: <878rgga1qv.fsf@inria.fr> User-agent: mu4e 1.8.13; emacs 28.2 From: Christopher Baines To: Ludovic =?utf-8?Q?Court=C3=A8s?= Subject: Re: [bug#61894] [PATCH RFC] Team approval for patches Date: Wed, 01 Mar 2023 17:15:26 +0000 In-reply-to: <878rgga1qv.fsf@inria.fr> Message-ID: <871qm8wf8e.fsf@cbaines.net> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/signed; boundary="=-=-="; micalg=pgp-sha512; protocol="application/pgp-signature" X-Spam-Score: -0.0 (/) X-Debbugs-Envelope-To: 61894 Cc: guix-devel@gnu.org, 61894@debbugs.gnu.org, guix-maintainers@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: -1.0 (-) --=-=-= Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Ludovic Court=C3=A8s writes: > Currently teams are described mostly as pools of people who can mentor > contributors in a particular area and who can review patches in that > area. My proposal is to give teams formal approval power over changes > to code in their area. > > This is sorta happening already, but informally: if a non-committer > sends a patch, someone from the team eventually =E2=80=9Capproves=E2=80= =9D it by pushing > it. Within a team, the situation is different: people usually discuss > changes, and the submitter (also committer) eventually pushes them; > sometimes, the submitter pushes changes without getting approval (or > feedback) from others on the team. > > With the proposed policy, members of a team would also have to review > and approve each other=E2=80=99s work. Formal approval means getting an > explicit =E2=80=9CLGTM=E2=80=9D (or similar) from at least one other team= member. > > This is similar to the review thresholds found on GitLab & co., where > project admins can specify a minimum number of approvals required before > a change is marked as ready. I think it avoids the unavoidable > misunderstandings that can arise in a growing group and help pacify > day-to-day collaboration. I guess I'm still a team sceptic, I think the idea is interesting and I have added myself as a member of some teams. But the main impact on me so far is that I've just been getting some unwanted personal email, messages that previously wouldn't have landed in my inbox have been doing so. Regarding this change specifically though, I'm unclear how it would impact the things I push for others. I pushed some patches today, would this mean that I'd have to look at what team/teams are involved (according to /etc/teams.scm.in) for each commit/series, and then either continue if I'm a member of that team, or skip it if I'm not? If I'm going to not be pushing stuff I would have previously pushed because I'm not in the relevant teams, maybe I should just add myself to every team? I guess this is not a serious question, but I'm more making the point that if teams become a formal part of patch review, then some formalities over membership of a team is probably a prerequsite. As a point of clarification, if a patch or series touches files that fall within the scope of several teams, am I correct in saying that this change would require approval from all teams? Thanks, Chris --=-=-= Content-Type: application/pgp-signature; name="signature.asc" -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- iQKlBAEBCgCPFiEEPonu50WOcg2XVOCyXiijOwuE9XcFAmP/i+JfFIAAAAAALgAo aXNzdWVyLWZwckBub3RhdGlvbnMub3BlbnBncC5maWZ0aGhvcnNlbWFuLm5ldDNF ODlFRUU3NDU4RTcyMEQ5NzU0RTBCMjVFMjhBMzNCMEI4NEY1NzcRHG1haWxAY2Jh aW5lcy5uZXQACgkQXiijOwuE9Xfggg//Q5dqVs810PhFfWu42fgfn5ddY7DknJdT FYamJun/Fsb/NFYyibTIP2iWnkdYTRLZpKye5LE3o4JDGJw8nQSrFe45Y2PmRPBI lOmZlTXLuTY4ZblXfesqnFf4XTA6oaD7cVHV0LuPoPtZ+J+ghgiQTu2w9uC0roup 8DRBjCfwl2/qCFN8zvLcgIVHWeOxTii5SZrcs7m/nP2ZTAYpTjuhcNEjlv15PNBF QDTzvHMoESjUeqlEIFB9Q0vksyCMY+BcCZxqnOJ3+xHVfWlXyv1e5wPrjZbWX3+2 5/KFYYcpeCZQhI+9+2p4ptuFdfFmoJS/oPa2Nyyfq/1rExbR3aCnfkbMlltyRcPO z88e7CtG94WeqXMkChprh7tklQlQWBNkYRgVDDxdca8B5fmsnierXUDudG32q72D FPSgqNfT068EnptHVpzVbhhL6+0j/oj7wH8i4sqH2VrGWS+0iVbbRPUWXlqKM5nT LpuYsuima/YwNN7ZsFvnoC78D842SdvQWWvBrHQyCNqIqNAbjIldl8HAcTGvAMUU 9ynAxjZDM/CxmGDsEaP0dcHIgj6iNthAXaX4HWVrKHCtHN/2+HABJeocvMATMfk6 eyw8F/PzY2h2aY8FxSvBF4Zx5hFAULeIihLo0pBc4fuEiYJDI0UPsoVYsplL2wjP VcsLfBk3E7U= =2xHO -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --=-=-=--