On Mon, Feb 05 2024, Clément Lassieur wrote: > On Mon, Feb 05 2024, Felix Lechner via "Development of GNU Guix and the GNU > System distribution." wrote: > > I see no evidence here. And I'm unsure which plan you are talking > about (the plan?).
Two people can look at the same thing and reach different conclusions. I see no evidence that large numbers of non-committers are eager to review patches. > What do you mean with "bottom"? I'm sorry to put words into your mouth. I meant to quote an executive at a bank who explained that strategy to me. The word "bottom" was his and should have been a quote. The executive referred to people without the authority to act on behalf of the group. I believe Guix would be better off to delegate responsibility (rather than competency) by handing out commit access more generously but imposing limits as to the type of changes a person may make. The honor system will work fine. > Reviewing != Closing Maybe they should be the same. Two people looking at a patch (submitter and committer) are more efficient than three people, i.e. a submitter, a reviewer, and a committer. It's one of several bottlenecks at Guix. Another is that committers should commit what they think is right rather than ask for revised patches. Please give authorship to the submitter. Kind regards Felix
