From debbugs-submit-bounces@debbugs.gnu.org Tue Mar 07 13:30:00 2023 Received: (at 61894) by debbugs.gnu.org; 7 Mar 2023 18:30:00 +0000 Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1]:47174 helo=debbugs.gnu.org) by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.84_2) (envelope-from ) id 1pZc4W-0005rl-0u for submit@debbugs.gnu.org; Tue, 07 Mar 2023 13:30:00 -0500 Received: from mail-qt1-f172.google.com ([209.85.160.172]:39519) by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.84_2) (envelope-from ) id 1pZc4U-0005rS-Mh for 61894@debbugs.gnu.org; Tue, 07 Mar 2023 13:29:59 -0500 Received: by mail-qt1-f172.google.com with SMTP id w23so15410627qtn.6 for <61894@debbugs.gnu.org>; Tue, 07 Mar 2023 10:29:58 -0800 (PST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20210112; t=1678213793; h=mime-version:user-agent:message-id:in-reply-to:date:references :subject:cc:to:from:from:to:cc:subject:date:message-id:reply-to; bh=S6UnTeIscbV8xdLPFgS7yHcXo2HDBpsdNG9uaNFvKUY=; b=pYOwC1kUDwYDXiwuO+2m4nuUdKRUnJILSnmUVTmyO/sWz3R2hVHLxMXdK5Vluw4D4o 6OMkUI0/DG6vj5Fzjy1ce7IyixBG6RkGrrevfaXq13HNtyVp6eGlaCDbL0ak1Vm/GUEh UVLOmX1Wtof0xCNoel8QXOiri5M8lwPSewyaERK8zOdWPXIB9t6/76mcgzLLUPbBTmMc vfE7ouCl4W3oa+gkXyxtu0BCqbpDiupsHCcQoudJ3mPFwI/Sq+w2t9O9+am8ncp3ZRSF gFI4wHhjqNIiMp6lWaQ0d3UFQ2xq4zbA6MDjFKAH4X69eCiu91GGmqAy1CsNJZoV8oMB xDyg== X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20210112; t=1678213793; h=mime-version:user-agent:message-id:in-reply-to:date:references :subject:cc:to:from:x-gm-message-state:from:to:cc:subject:date :message-id:reply-to; bh=S6UnTeIscbV8xdLPFgS7yHcXo2HDBpsdNG9uaNFvKUY=; b=lO83joe9C/8fBSD1qBhnHIDIb9KQupoGXSolhK+blgdTX1+Wq0vfnIiOgKbeBCn8sf DEDaaQozyoUBO7NJWwGe3HpNWE2PcJffSz7Nms4cHeZcvFC9dIBJzenYcYyWAJ0E3YAj 0FYzba0C+MKb6Bwv6IH8AIU5BDcwNFm/VIz2stYW9VgUOXGwAgEZ8xUNQnZFtyl2LxFC urq088+g1U2kNU17YmawQ9A7k8A3nbBCpnc0nDF74O5g6uT0B9wl4pusVa4PgLwPwZpS 9zgtJlyNwbREXcdKY+gbcHd99/F8KpPSvZYwMr/hqkzeXw+Lc/nNaFPyEI8z8g2JiqfD Khqw== X-Gm-Message-State: AO0yUKUBxz5Gm7DiqrW/HCwiHz1RCGWYXioY4FN/85xYykDoBEo9Lsk6 80+wBa/hf836frBUhrvRNU8= X-Google-Smtp-Source: AK7set/f7msbP7FDOwxfnSJf8hZw4eOShgmD2XmzqYOpCfkrdhL+7rlYuERgl0bf6rD0AxTY895+/w== X-Received: by 2002:a05:622a:54c:b0:3bf:d9d2:484f with SMTP id m12-20020a05622a054c00b003bfd9d2484fmr25440347qtx.11.1678213793108; Tue, 07 Mar 2023 10:29:53 -0800 (PST) Received: from hurd ([2607:fad8:4:3::1000]) by smtp.gmail.com with ESMTPSA id q1-20020ac87341000000b003bfa2c512e6sm9936747qtp.20.2023.03.07.10.29.52 (version=TLS1_3 cipher=TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 bits=256/256); Tue, 07 Mar 2023 10:29:52 -0800 (PST) From: Maxim Cournoyer To: Simon Tournier Subject: Re: bug#61894: [PATCH RFC] Team approval for patches References: <878rgga1qv.fsf@inria.fr> <871qm8wf8e.fsf@cbaines.net> <87r0u86qgo.fsf_-_@gnu.org> <87y1o9mina.fsf_-_@envs.net> <861qm0da4y.fsf@gmail.com> Date: Tue, 07 Mar 2023 13:29:51 -0500 In-Reply-To: <861qm0da4y.fsf@gmail.com> (Simon Tournier's message of "Tue, 07 Mar 2023 13:22:05 +0100") Message-ID: <87sfegwh28.fsf@gmail.com> User-Agent: Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13) Emacs/28.2 (gnu/linux) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain X-Spam-Score: 0.0 (/) X-Debbugs-Envelope-To: 61894 Cc: guix-maintainers@gnu.org, Ludovic =?utf-8?Q?Court=C3=A8s?= , Christopher Baines , 61894@debbugs.gnu.org, =?utf-8?B?5a6L5paH5q2m?= , Andreas Enge , guix-devel@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 (-) Hi Simon, Simon Tournier writes: > Hi, > > On Tue, 07 Mar 2023 at 11:36, Andreas Enge wrote: > >> 1) Every current and potential new package is covered by a team. >> 2) Every team has at least 3 members, better yet 4 or 5. >> 3 members would make it possible that even if one of them is on vacation >> or otherwise busy a patch could be pushed without this additional one >> week if the other 2 agree. > > It would help if being committer implies appearing at least in one team, > no? > > Currently in etc/teams.scm.in, I count 26 members and 20 are committers > over the 48 ones. No blame. :-) If most committers end up being team members, aren't we back to where we currently stand? It seems the original motivation here is to add some extra control/guards against undesirable commits landing in the core of Guix. If a committer that previously landed such commits joined the core team (e.g., myself), it seems to me the situation would be little changed: 1. Our pool of reviewers would likely continue to be spread too thin. 2. The 2 weeks time window would quickly slip, even with a team looking at a more focused backlog, or the reviews would only be of the kind "I think that's not what we want" without more time or energy to offer the kind of concrete insights that can be turned into action for the submitter. 3. The team member might be tempted to take their chance and merge their change with little to no feedback, or feedback they perceived insufficient or not actionable enough to justify keeping their submission in limbo for longer. I think the main problem we have is social, not organizational. There's little incentive to jump into the laborious review process compared to hack on something we like in our free time. We need to promote and value review work more, without making it feel like a compulsory chore. That's a great challenge to solve for a project that's driven by volunteers. I'll venture a suggestion to explore: adding enticements to review (some playful guidelines such as "while waiting for your 2 weeks review period, please try to review twice as many other submissions that have been patiently waiting on the patches tracker :-)", or some stats crunched and advertised periodically to guix-devel or even our to our blog about our top reviewers, etc.). -- Maxim