On Tue, 19 Oct 2021 at 17:41, Ludovic Courtès <l...@gnu.org> wrote: > I would like to see us committers do more review work. But I also view > things from a different angle: everyone contributes in their own way, > and each contribution is a gift. We can insist on community > expectations (reviewing other people’s work), but we should also welcome > contributions as they come.
I am aligned with these words: «everyone contributes in their own way, and each contribution is a gift». I truly agree. > There’s a balance to be found between no formal commitment on behalf of > committers, and a strict and codified commitment similar to what is > required for participation in the distros list¹. I do not know (yet?) if I agree on that. I would just say that many more potential contributors are floating around. We are already selecting a small part of them using the email workflow (using another workflow would select another part; who knows what is best ;-)). Then, the question is how to keep them? Obviously, I do not have the answer. :-) And sadly, I do not have number for backing an intuition. >From my experience when digging into the bug tracker, I see many submissions without an answer and people who seem to have given up. Sadly, it is impossible to know why. > A good middle ground may be to provide incentives for review. How? I’m > not sure exactly, but first by making it clear that review is makes the > project move forward and is invaluable. You once proposed having > ‘Reviewed-By’ tags to acknowledge non-committer reviews, and I think > that would be one step in that direction. Perhaps there are other > things we could do? Yeah, I think that non-committer doing review deserve rewards. :-) For instance, the Linux project uses a lot of various tags [2]. The Guix project could borrow some. ;-) For instance, the Guix project uses Reported-by for bugs, somehow. One can imagine a Reviewed-by or Tested-by. 2: <https://www.kernel.org/doc/html/v4.17/process/submitting-patches.html> >>> I think it’s about finding the right balance to be reasonably efficient >>> while not compromising on quality. >> >> I totally agree. And I do not see nor understand where is the >> inefficiency here when asking to go via guix-patches and wait two weeks >> for adding a new package. > > It’s not about urgency but rather about not contributing to the growth > of our patch backlog, which is a real problem. Thus, why wait two weeks before pushing is an issue? Cheers, simon
