From debbugs-submit-bounces@debbugs.gnu.org Thu Mar 02 06:04:55 2023 Received: (at 61894) by debbugs.gnu.org; 2 Mar 2023 11:04:55 +0000 Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1]:55958 helo=debbugs.gnu.org) by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.84_2) (envelope-from ) id 1pXgk3-0001mZ-5g for submit@debbugs.gnu.org; Thu, 02 Mar 2023 06:04:55 -0500 Received: from hera.aquilenet.fr ([185.233.100.1]:52302) by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.84_2) (envelope-from ) id 1pXgk1-0001mJ-7Y for 61894@debbugs.gnu.org; Thu, 02 Mar 2023 06:04:53 -0500 Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by hera.aquilenet.fr (Postfix) with ESMTP id F0BFD198F; Thu, 2 Mar 2023 12:04:46 +0100 (CET) X-Virus-Scanned: Debian amavisd-new at hera.aquilenet.fr Received: from hera.aquilenet.fr ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost (hera.aquilenet.fr [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id df4JXLlNLSAD; Thu, 2 Mar 2023 12:04:46 +0100 (CET) Received: from jurong (unknown [147.94.72.84]) by hera.aquilenet.fr (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 53C65694; Thu, 2 Mar 2023 12:04:46 +0100 (CET) Date: Thu, 2 Mar 2023 12:04:44 +0100 From: Andreas Enge To: Ludovic =?iso-8859-15?Q?Court=E8s?= Subject: Re: bug#61894: [PATCH RFC] Team approval for patches Message-ID: References: <878rgga1qv.fsf@inria.fr> <871qm8wf8e.fsf@cbaines.net> <87r0u86qgo.fsf_-_@gnu.org> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <87r0u86qgo.fsf_-_@gnu.org> X-Spam-Score: -0.0 (/) X-Debbugs-Envelope-To: 61894 Cc: guix-devel@gnu.org, Christopher Baines , 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 (-) Hello, in the current situation I think the suggestion is putting the horse before the cart. In a first step before adding policy, we should make the teams functional. While working on core-updates, I have been realising we are already spread too thin: Some important languages have teams with one or two members, who would effectively become bottlenecks. Other software has no team (Qt/KDE). All in all, I also think we have too few committers. Adding policy might completely stall the project... If for every trivial update of a Python package we need not only submit a patch to the bugtracker, wait for QA, get back to the patch, resign it, push it and close the bug, but additionally wait for one of the two Python team members to have a look at it (or let an additional week pass), incentives to participate will tend to zero. Your suggested policy can help against commits of too bad quality; but I do not think this is our problem, our problem is rather a lack of fast progress. So I think we need to add committers, add committers to teams, encourage teams to engage in work, and if everything works smoothly, maybe add policy. Andreas