Hilton Chain <hako@ultrarare.space> writes: > Hi Guix, > > This email starts as a follow-up to #695 (doc: Document bulk updates.[1]), > since > it brought this topic to the surface. To be clear, I'm not against the > automation. I even want to mark out all packages that are not working with > ‘guix refresh’ :) > > > But my point is that, a trivial change in package definition is not > necessarily > one for the specific package. If we check the change when updating one > package, > why adding exceptions and doing less when updating more packages? > > Speaking of trivial changes, I notice that sometimes unsubmitted changes are > pushed to master. I did the same thing as well, even with several breakages, > so > I understand why this happens. I'm not comfortable with being suddenly called > "privileged" after being a committer, but this is the truth, at least for now. > > > I have thought about an approach that may partially address the above two > points, while empowering the community more, with the cost of some efficiency: > > 1. Setting a minimum requirement for committing changes > > - Require all changes to be submitted first. This is actually enforcing the > commit policy[2]. > > - Add more pull request templates[3], gradually improve them + > documentations > they link to, and consider the pull request ready when suitable template > for > the change is finished. Codeberg doesn't support multiple templates but > we > can have our own rule ;) >
I thought we could not have multiple PR templates? > 2. Explicitly turn privileges into responsibilities and encourage the whole > community to join in the development. > > - Users are encouraged to review pull requests they are interested in, they > can comment and provide information to finish the template, with the help > of > the checklist and linked documentations. (comments that are out of the > documented scopes don't have to be addressed, as an approach to improve > the > documentation and avoid receiving conflict reviews while not knowing which > one to follow) > > - Team members are users, additionally since they choose to gain more > permissions, they are committed to reviewing team-specific patches, > editing > pull request descriptions, filling in the right template, and setting > labels > (we can add more labels[4] to help the process). > > - Committers are users and likely team members, additionally since they > choose > to gain more permissions, they are committed to applying pull requests > that > are ready. > > > This might be a GCD topic, but I may not have writing energy to finish one. > Since this also mainly depends on the expectation on Guix, I'm sending the > email > out to see how it goes. > Totally agree with the idea :) Have a nice day, Noé > Thanks > > [1]: https://codeberg.org/guix/guix/pulls/695 > Cc'd people on this pull request. Also Simon, because they have an > interesting > position :) > > [2]: > https://guix.gnu.org/manual/devel/en/html_node/Commit-Access.html#Commit-Policy > > [3]: > https://codeberg.org/guix/guix/src/branch/master/.forgejo/pull_request_template.md > Of the multiple templates we'd have one for packages like the current one, IMO > bulk updates should use it, since it's not special compared to updating one > package. > > [4]: https://lists.gnu.org/archive/html/guix-devel/2025-06/msg00002.html
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
