Hi Ludo,
On Mon, 18 Oct 2021 at 09:40, Ludovic Courtès wrote:
> I don’t think there are “tragic” commits either. Usually, one records a
> revision that works for them and use the same months later.
Drifting from the initial comment. One could name “tragic” commits are
commits which break “gui
Hi,
On Fri, 15 Oct 2021 at 20:54, Ludovic Courtès wrote:
> --8<---cut here---start->8---
> $ guix build -f /tmp/content-addressed.scm -S --check
> La jena derivaĵo estos konstruata:
>/gnu/store/nq2jdzbv3nh9b1mglan54dcpfz4l7bli-sed-4.8.tar.gz.drv
> buildi
Hi,
zimoun skribis:
> I agree with a minor comment. From my opinion, not enough patches are
> going via guix-patches and are pushed directly.
>
> For instance, the «Commit policy» section says «For patches that just
> add a new package, and a simple one, it’s OK to commit, if you’re
> confident
Hi Ludo,
On Tue, 19 Oct 2021 at 14:56, Ludovic Courtès wrote:
> zimoun skribis:
>
>> I agree with a minor comment. From my opinion, not enough patches are
>> going via guix-patches and are pushed directly.
>>
>> For instance, the «Commit policy» section says «For patches that just
>> add a new
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. As someone without commit access, I ca
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
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,
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
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
