From debbugs-submit-bounces@debbugs.gnu.org Mon Mar 06 16:42:44 2023 Received: (at 61894) by debbugs.gnu.org; 6 Mar 2023 21:42:44 +0000 Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1]:43866 helo=debbugs.gnu.org) by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.84_2) (envelope-from ) id 1pZIbU-0004rn-CU for submit@debbugs.gnu.org; Mon, 06 Mar 2023 16:42:44 -0500 Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([209.51.188.92]:33262) by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.84_2) (envelope-from ) id 1pZIbS-0004rb-7b for 61894@debbugs.gnu.org; Mon, 06 Mar 2023 16:42:42 -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 1pZIbJ-00036V-Eu; Mon, 06 Mar 2023 16:42:34 -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=DwiPE54c/yOMS32+f3qImf00Fybx5IuKxyc+EKe6rfs=; b=PDZBxNTtgZvGWx586CQA ITi8d5EtT/PvJh7jnYoyKVJT5fNS7AFuPog7bGJm10zVSpPPqfC71WJ4zyZ6sH5zPiwbiDAQ6iHAa oKxsPo3QQtsO2f1+pVaX5KwwCkUxMa4jbclzFjc9EM4N16qF5GAQ4vrohL6RkuDxJFE/wF9/qhUeF 9t8EnNdhAq5kytSXBQVCr/bo/0NGi84DIx37YKveAptFwdMw25BP9emy3a75hsXWwP6DjCGH4Ngie geNsDEJnu42H211imVmUgs01De6YjitHIl4qx8gqwj4w5M4HevmFHto7zYfrDkGdJqkSak6iaaCbe EWFbiIpXdLqubQ==; 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 1pZIbI-00022O-2i; Mon, 06 Mar 2023 16:42:32 -0500 From: =?utf-8?Q?Ludovic_Court=C3=A8s?= To: Maxim Cournoyer Subject: Re: [bug#61894] [PATCH RFC] Team approval for patches References: <878rgga1qv.fsf@inria.fr> <87h6ux285h.fsf@gmail.com> X-URL: http://www.fdn.fr/~lcourtes/ X-Revolutionary-Date: Sextidi 16 =?utf-8?Q?Vent=C3=B4se?= an 231 de la =?utf-8?Q?R=C3=A9volution=2C?= jour de =?utf-8?Q?l'=C3=89pinard?= X-PGP-Key-ID: 0x090B11993D9AEBB5 X-PGP-Key: http://www.fdn.fr/~lcourtes/ludovic.asc X-PGP-Fingerprint: 3CE4 6455 8A84 FDC6 9DB4 0CFB 090B 1199 3D9A EBB5 X-OS: x86_64-pc-linux-gnu Date: Mon, 06 Mar 2023 22:42:29 +0100 In-Reply-To: <87h6ux285h.fsf@gmail.com> (Maxim Cournoyer's message of "Mon, 06 Mar 2023 10:48:10 -0500") Message-ID: <87edq14kvu.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: 61894 Cc: guix-devel , 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: -3.3 (---) Hi, Maxim Cournoyer skribis: > It sounds reasonable and a good change "on paper", but in practice I > think it may be too soon to formalize teams that way. Teams are a > nascent concept which hasn't reached a point we can rely on it, in my > opinion. We are still ironing out kinks in the tools [0] :-). I'd > prefer we stay as nimble/agile as we can and maximize the potential of > our large committers pool for now, at the expense of sometimes having to > retroactively discussing/fixing up or reverting some change that wasn't > up to par, that could have possibly been caught by a more focused team. I think formalizing collaboration would be the way to =E2=80=9Cmaximize the potential of our large committer pool=E2=80=9D: by having clear rules, we m= ake it easier to work together, not harder. Retroactively fixing, reverting, or discussing often causes unnecessary friction and puts pressure on the collective. Discussion should always happen before the fact. We=E2=80=99ve reached the point where the code base is large and the experi= ences of individual contributors vary. To cope with that, I think we need to communicate and coordinate more to have a shared understanding of the code, of our goals, of our needs and expectations. We can no longer rely on implicitness and the idea that silence is consent. This proposal is one possible step in that direction, but I=E2=80=99m open = to other approaches. Ludo=E2=80=99.