Re: Incentives for review

zimoun writes: >> I have often seen folks on various projects worried about the size of >> various backlogs: bugs, issues, etc. I think it is human to want to >> try and contain something that appears to be growing, unbounded. > > …about patches only. Bug is another story. :-) Sorry, I meant t

Re: Incentives for review

On Thu, Oct 21, 2021 at 10:51:07AM -0700, Vagrant Cascadian wrote: > On 2021-10-19, Ludovic Courtès wrote: > > zimoun skribis: > > > >> On Tue, 19 Oct 2021 at 14:56, Ludovic Courtès > >> wrote: > > >> One question is “encouragement” for reviewing, somehow. Asking for new > >> package additions

Re: Incentives for review

Hi, On Fri, 22 Oct 2021 at 21:43, Kyle Meyer wrote: > Fwiw public-inbox () indexes the file name > from diffs. Searching with the "dfn:" prefix against > , you can get a feed of changes > touching particular paths by using the "dfn:" pr

Re: Incentives for review

Hi zimoun, > The wishlist is to also allow this: > > I've never needed this, but this is definitely a good feature to have! Cheers! :-) signature.asc Description: PGP signature

Re: Incentives for review

Hello Kyle, Em sexta-feira, 22 de outubro de 2021, às 22:43:05 -03, Kyle Meyer escreveu: > Thiago Jung Bauermann writes: > > Em quinta-feira, 21 de outubro de 2021, às 10:38:44 -03, Artem Chernyak > > escreveu: > [...] > > >> One thing that could help this, is to include a little more info in >

Re: Incentives for review

Thiago Jung Bauermann writes: > Em quinta-feira, 21 de outubro de 2021, às 10:38:44 -03, Artem Chernyak > escreveu: [...] >> One thing that could help this, is to include a little more info in >> the subject line for patches. Right now we include the broad area >> (e.g. "gnu: ..."). But we could

Re: Incentives for review

Hello, Em quinta-feira, 21 de outubro de 2021, às 13:06:35 -03, Ricardo Wurmus escreveu: > Thiago Jung Bauermann writes: > > 2. Going through the guix-patches mailing list looking for > > submissions that > > touch the few areas of Guix where I have at least some > > experience. I don’t > > thin

Re: Incentives for review

Hello Artem, Em quinta-feira, 21 de outubro de 2021, às 10:38:44 -03, Artem Chernyak escreveu: > > On Wed, Oct 20, 2021 at 4:37 PM Thiago Jung Bauermann wrote: > [...] > > > One thing that would help me would be some way to “subscribe” to > > changes in certain areas of Guix. That way, when a

Re: Incentives for review

Hi Jonathan, On Fri, 22 Oct 2021 at 12:40, Jonathan McHugh wrote: > > > > Yes, Arun has recommended public-inbox before, Im enthused by anything he > uses or packages. For the Emacs-Notmuch user, give a look at:

Re: Incentives for review

Hi, On Fri, 22 Oct 2021 at 12:49, Arun Isaac wrote: > > These are all excellent ideas, and seeing you articulate them > > makes me happy, because in my experience there’s always good code > > around the corner whenever you have good ideas :) It remember me this wishlist: Use Message-ID for inde

Re: Incentives for review

Hi zimoun, > The code running it is Woof (lisp based): > > Ah, woof looks good! :-) It feels a lot like patchwork, but better integrated into email. I'm tempted to say it's better than our debbugs bug tracker! :-P But, it may be hard to move out of debbugs now th

Re: Incentives for review

Hi Arun, I wasnt thinking of that. Ill update you if I find a reference among my notes. Jonathan October 22, 2021 12:44 PM, "Arun Isaac" wrote: > Hi Jonathan, > >> If I recall, you can request Debbugs content if you email them. > > I think you are referring to https://debbugs.gnu.org/server

Re: Incentives for review

October 22, 2021 12:48 PM, "Arun Isaac" wrote: > Hi Ricardo, > >> These are all excellent ideas, and seeing you articulate them >> makes me happy, because in my experience there’s always good code >> around the corner whenever you have good ideas :) > > He he, thanks! :-) > >> So to hack on mu

Re: Incentives for review

Hi Ricardo, > These are all excellent ideas, and seeing you articulate them > makes me happy, because in my experience there’s always good code > around the corner whenever you have good ideas :) He he, thanks! :-) > So to hack on mumi I’d suggest downloading a copy of the raw debbugs > data

Re: Incentives for review

Hi Jonathan, > If I recall, you can request Debbugs content if you email them. I think you are referring to https://debbugs.gnu.org/server-request.html I haven't tried it myself, and I'm not sure, but it probably doesn't give you access to the raw emails. I'm guessing it's just an email interfac

Re: Incentives for review

Hi Simon, October 22, 2021 11:22 AM, "zimoun" wrote: > Hi Jonathan, > > On Fri, 22 Oct 2021 at 08:37, "Jonathan McHugh" > wrote: > >> Its also worth citing some of the suggestions in this devel-guix thread >> concerning tooling or >> options: >> https://lists.nongnu.org/archive/html/guix-de

Re: Incentives for review

Hi Jonathan, On Fri, 22 Oct 2021 at 08:37, "Jonathan McHugh" wrote: > Its also worth citing some of the suggestions in this devel-guix thread > concerning tooling or options: > https://lists.nongnu.org/archive/html/guix-devel/2021-08/msg00042.html Thanks. > Suggestions included: > Bugs Every

Re: Incentives for review

Hi Simon, I had noticed Woof and it does seem interesting and worthy of analysis. I should point out that the Ogmode community have the same problems and complaints regarding the governance and efficacy of issue/bug tracking. This is a socio-technological problem, which hopefully has solutions

Re: Incentives for review

Hi Arun, On Thu, 21 Oct 2021 at 23:51, Arun Isaac wrote: > The way I see it, we are outgrowing general purpose bug trackers like > debbugs. We need a special purpose bug tracker specifically for Guix > with its special requirements. We are a big enough community for this to > be important. For

Re: Incentives for review

> On Wed, Oct 20, 2021 at 4:37 PM Thiago Jung Bauermann > wrote: [...] > One thing that would help me would be some way to “subscribe” to changes in > certain areas of Guix. That way, when a patch is submitted which touches > those areas I would be automatically copied on the emails that go to

Re: Incentives for review

Hi, I mainly agree with the words of the message I am replying and my intent is to provide numbers about what we are speaking. >> It’s not about urgency but rather about not contributing to the growth >> of our patch backlog, which is a real problem. While I disagree for submitting new package –

Re: Incentives for review

Hi Arun, Thiago’s idea to allow people to subscribe to certain *kinds* of issues when they are reported is also good. I agree this is a great idea. Recently, I unsubscribed from guix-patches. It's just too high volume. These days, I prefer to just search for issues using emacs-debbugs and

Re: Incentives for review

If I recall, you can request Debbugs content if you email them. Jonathan McHugh indieterminacy@libre.brussels October 21, 2021 8:22 PM, "Arun Isaac" wrote: > Hi, > >> Thiago’s idea to allow people to subscribe to certain *kinds* of >> issues when they are reported is also

Re: Incentives for review

Hi, Ricardo Wurmus skribis: > I was thinking in the opposite direction: not incentives to recognize > reviewers but a closer relationship to the patch submitters, > i.e. “patch buddies” or mentorship. If I made myself officially > responsible for reviewing commits by Simon and all commits touch

Re: Incentives for review

Hi! Arun Isaac skribis: >> Thiago’s idea to allow people to subscribe to certain *kinds* of >> issues when they are reported is also good. > > I agree this is a great idea. Recently, I unsubscribed from > guix-patches. It's just too high volume. These days, I prefer to just > search for issues u

Re: Incentives for review

Hi, > Thiago’s idea to allow people to subscribe to certain *kinds* of > issues when they are reported is also good. I agree this is a great idea. Recently, I unsubscribed from guix-patches. It's just too high volume. These days, I prefer to just search for issues using emacs-debbugs and mumi.

Re: Incentives for review

On 2021-10-19, Ludovic Courtès wrote: > zimoun skribis: > >> On Tue, 19 Oct 2021 at 14:56, Ludovic Courtès >> wrote: >> One question is “encouragement” for reviewing, somehow. Asking for new >> package additions to go via guix-patches is a call making kind of >> equality between contributors.

Re: Incentives for review

Ricardo Wurmus writes: > Katherine Cox-Buday writes: > >>> It’s not about urgency but rather about not contributing to the growth >>> of our patch backlog, which is a real problem. >> >> I have often seen folks on various projects worried about the size of >> various backlogs: bugs, issues, etc.

Re: Incentives for review

Hi, On Thu, 21 Oct 2021 at 16:06, Ricardo Wurmus wrote: > Perhaps issues.guix.gnu.org could offer atom feeds for certain > keywords (e.g. the name of the module touched by the commits?). For instance, let have some number over the last year and half: File: gnu/packages/bioconductor.s

Re: Incentives for review

Katherine Cox-Buday writes: It’s not about urgency but rather about not contributing to the growth of our patch backlog, which is a real problem. I have often seen folks on various projects worried about the size of various backlogs: bugs, issues, etc. I think it is human to want to try

Re: Incentives for review

Thiago Jung Bauermann writes: 2. Going through the guix-patches mailing list looking for submissions that touch the few areas of Guix where I have at least some experience. I don’t think I found an effective method yet (in part the problem is on my side because the search function of the

Re: Incentives for review

Ludovic Courtès writes: >> On Tue, 19 Oct 2021 at 14:56, Ludovic Courtès > But I also view things from a different angle: everyone contributes in their > own way, and each contribution is a gift. Maybe selfishly, but I really agree with this. I think this is just the nature of community-based

Re: Incentives for review

Hello, Em terça-feira, 19 de outubro de 2021, às 12:41:23 -03, Ludovic Courtès escreveu: > zimoun skribis: > > On Tue, 19 Oct 2021 at 14:56, Ludovic Courtès wrote: > [...] > > I would like to see us committers do more review work. But I also view > things from a different angle: everyone con

Re: Incentives for review

Ricardo Wurmus writes: > Ludovic Courtès writes: > >> 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

Re: Incentives for review

Ricardo Wurmus writes: > Ludovic Courtès writes: > >> 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

Re: Incentives for review

Ludovic Courtès writes: 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,

Re: Incentives for review

On Tue, 19 Oct 2021 at 17:41, Ludovic Courtès 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 peo