Re: Dealing with upstream issues

Hi! Just to be clear, I started this thread as discussion on the kind of interaction we reviewers should offer to submitters. I am not suggesting changes in our “quality standards”, nor am I suggesting that one group of people do more work. Maxime Devos skribis: > Ludovic Courtès schreef op ma

Re: Dealing with upstream issues

Hi zimoun, et al, On +2022-06-28 18:25:05 +0200, zimoun wrote: > Hi, > > On Tue, 28 Jun 2022 at 14:31, Maxime Devos wrote: > > > You often close bugs with as rationale: ‘no response since X months, > > hence closing’, so it seems to me that you would simply close bug > > reports if the bug repo

Re: Dealing with upstream issues

zimoun schreef op di 28-06-2022 om 19:36 [+0200]: > Hi, > > On Tue, 28 Jun 2022 at 18:47, Maxime Devos wrote: > > > It is -- where's the bug report upstream or a fix? > > Upstream [1] does not have a bug tracker, or I am missing it.  See > bug#56285 for tracking the issue in Guix. > > O righ

Re: Dealing with upstream issues

Hi, On Tue, 28 Jun 2022 at 18:47, Maxime Devos wrote: > It is -- where's the bug report upstream or a fix? Upstream [1] does not have a bug tracker, or I am missing it. See bug#56285 for tracking the issue in Guix. 1: 2:

Re: Dealing with upstream issues

zimoun schreef op di 28-06-2022 om 18:25 [+0200]: > My workflow dealing with old bugs is: pick one and read the report (and > the complete thread, if any), then, > >  1. the report provides enough information for reproducing; I try to >     reproduce myself and report more info, and then I try to

Re: Dealing with upstream issues

zimoun schreef op di 28-06-2022 om 18:21 [+0200]: > And… as I wrote [1]: > >     I agree; we cannot fix the world. ;-) In the case of patch#55541, the >     issues of cross-compilation can be reported directly to upstream and >     another Debbugs number could be open. > > 1:

Re: Dealing with upstream issues

Hi, On Tue, 28 Jun 2022 at 14:31, Maxime Devos wrote: > You often close bugs with as rationale: ‘no response since X months, > hence closing’, so it seems to me that you would simply close bug > reports if the bug reporter is gone. [...] > That's the issue I wanted to highlight -- issues are c

Re: Dealing with upstream issues

Hi, On Tue, 28 Jun 2022 at 14:21, Maxime Devos wrote: > zimoun schreef op di 28-06-2022 om 13:01 [+0200]: >> Well, from my understanding, the question is: should a perfectly working >> and fine submission be delayed because unrelated-to-Guix issues are in >> upstream code? > > This is not the que

Re: Dealing with upstream issues

zimount: > Last, I miss these comments about old bugs and what you are implicitly > suggesting with them. Are you suggesting that old unsolved bugs are > closed without valid motivation? You often close bugs with as rationale: ‘no response since X months, hence closing’, so it seems to me that yo

Re: Dealing with upstream issues

zimoun schreef op di 28-06-2022 om 13:01 [+0200]: >  Do you think that patch#55541 should be > delayed while submitter has not open an upstream issue? Yes, as mentioned in . Greetings, Maxime. signature.asc Description: This is a digitally signed message par

Re: Dealing with upstream issues

zimoun schreef op di 28-06-2022 om 13:01 [+0200]: > Well, from my understanding, the question is: should a perfectly working > and fine submission be delayed because unrelated-to-Guix issues are in > upstream code? This is not the question. The dispute is about: Maxime Devos: https://issues.guix

Re: Dealing with upstream issues

Hi Maxime, I am confused by your replies in the thread. Maybe, I miss the topic of the comment by Ludo. Well, from my understanding, the question is: should a perfectly working and fine submission be delayed because unrelated-to-Guix issues are in upstream code? Ludo said these unrelated-to-Gui

Re: Dealing with upstream issues

zimoun schreef op ma 27-06-2022 om 17:23 [+0200]: > Old unsolved bugs are still open.  The cross-compilation of one package is > an issue for sure, but: > >  1. it is not an issue for inclusion in Guix >  2. it has to be solved by people interested by cross-compilation Unfortunately, systematic c

Re: Dealing with upstream issues

zimoun schreef op ma 27-06-2022 om 17:23 [+0200]: > Old unsolved bugs are still open Sometimes they aren't: * https://issues.guix.gnu.org/45828 * https://issues.guix.gnu.org/26705 * https://issues.guix.gnu.org/25719 (exception handling hasn't been cleaned up before closing) * https://issues.

Re: Dealing with upstream issues

zimoun schreef op ma 27-06-2022 om 17:23 [+0200]: > You are mixing unrelated topics, IMHO. > > We have policies, not standard. > > «A policy is a set of ideas or plans that is used as a basis for making > decisions, especially in politics, economics, or business.» > > «A standard is a level of

Re: Dealing with upstream issues

zimoun schreef op ma 27-06-2022 om 17:06 [+0200]: > Do you mean > > --8<---cut here---start->8--- > > +(define-public harec > > +  (let ((commit "bbabe09bddf74bd699f8ad2224fdd6e2eefbd35e") > > (revision "0")) > Despite what (guix style) may tell you, revision go

Re: Dealing with upstream issues

Hi, On Mon, 27 Jun 2022 at 16:32, Maxime Devos wrote: >> Maybe I misunderstand the point.  To me, the aim of the package >> submission is the inclusion in Guix.  AFAIK, the Guix project is not >> applying any standard audit on the upstream code before inclusion. >> >> Therefore, if the upstream

Re: Dealing with upstream issues

On Mon, 27 Jun 2022 at 16:20, Maxime Devos wrote: > E.g.: https://issues.guix.gnu.org/55606#16 Do you mean --8<---cut here---start->8--- > +(define-public harec > + (let ((commit "bbabe09bddf74bd699f8ad2224fdd6e2eefbd35e") > (revision "0")) Despite what (gui

Re: Dealing with upstream issues

zimoun schreef op ma 27-06-2022 om 14:53 [+0200]: > Maybe I misunderstand the point.  To me, the aim of the package > submission is the inclusion in Guix.  AFAIK, the Guix project is not > applying any standard audit on the upstream code before inclusion. > > Therefore, if the upstream code is poo

Re: Dealing with upstream issues

zimoun schreef op ma 27-06-2022 om 14:32 [+0200]: > Hi Maxime, > > On Mon, 27 Jun 2022 at 12:37, Maxime Devos wrote: > > > Also, some of those rules are incorrect -- "guix style" occasionally > > makes things wrong and patch submitters had to be told to not follow > > it. > > Do you have concre

Re: Dealing with upstream issues

Hi, Well, from my understanding, there is mismatches between “review process”, “adoption in Guix” and “fix upstream”. On Mon, 27 Jun 2022 at 12:10, Ludovic Courtès wrote: >> AFAICT the issues have not been reported upstream yet, so I don't think >> we can close this entry on debbugs yet. Whil

Re: Dealing with upstream issues

Hi Maxime, On Mon, 27 Jun 2022 at 12:37, Maxime Devos wrote: > Also, some of those rules are incorrect -- "guix style" occasionally > makes things wrong and patch submitters had to be told to not follow > it. Do you have concrete examples in mind? Cheers, simon

Re: Dealing with upstream issues

Maxime Devos schreef op ma 27-06-2022 om 12:30 [+0200]: > We can ask to do send the notice upstream, if it's in the rules (I > consider this to be part of the unwritten rules). [...] > I also consider them to not be rules as in ‘if they are followed, it > WILL be accepted’ but more guidelines like

Re: Dealing with upstream issues

Ludovic Courtès schreef op ma 27-06-2022 om 12:10 [+0200]: > Regarding the review process, I think we should strive for a predictable > process—not requesting work from the submitter beyond what they can > expect.  Submitters can be expected to follow the written rules¹ and > perhaps a few more rul

Dealing with upstream issues

Hi Maxime, (Moving to guix-devel; starting point at .) Maxime Devos skribis: >> That said, I think it’s a bit too much to ask of a downstream packager >> or user to address these issues.  As I see it, these issues should be >> reported upstream and addressed