[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: On commit access, patch review, and remaining healthy
From: |
Giovanni Biscuolo |
Subject: |
Re: On commit access, patch review, and remaining healthy |
Date: |
Fri, 10 Jun 2022 14:27:44 +0200 |
Hi Arun,
thank you for your detailed analysis!
Arun Isaac <arunisaac@systemreboot.net> writes:
[...]
> I meant that Guix has very high coding/packaging standards in the
> following senses:
>
> - We prefer to not bundle dependencies. Tracking out bundled
> dependencies, git submodules, etc. and figuring out how to rewire
> everything so it works with unbundled dependencies can be really
> tricky for some packages.
more than tricky: sometimes /impossible/
this is a /huge/ complex issue (I know you know) that some upstream
developers simply ignore; in a sense I feel that Guix was developed
/also/ to help solve this issue and avoid programmers to invent too
creative ways to distribute theis software dependencies
...but it's a hard work, it needs... zen discipline
anyway: AFAIU all of us do agree that this requirement is a Good Thing™
and we have to keep it as a "core requirement"
also, AFAIU there is no way Guix maintainers can help in making this
process easier or automatic: right?
> - We build strictly from source.
This is also a requirement now adopted by many other distributions, at
least all the ones in https://reproducible-builds.org/who/projects/
> - We aim to package tests for all packages.
is there something different that should be done?
do this requirement (is it a requirement?) need to be better documented
or discussed?
> - We have strict conventions for commit messages. Our commit message
> Changelog is a strange dated practice from the time before good
> version control systems. I can live with it, but not everyone likes
> it. Let's just say I've heard complaints about it offlist.
AFAIU this is a requirement Guix inherits from GNU (being it a GNU
project)
I don't remember the ratio for this requirement but AFAIU it made sense
to me when I read that.
I just hope this requirement is refraining people to contribute and to
review patches.
Maybe we could help users not using Emacs with other editor-related
snippets in [~/src/guix/]etc/snippets? (I don't know other editors
templating systems)
> - We don't just list the main license of a package. We trace out the
> license of each and every file, if they are different from the main
> license.
Is it possible to write an helper tool?!? I have still not searched for
one such tool, maybe other distributions do have such a tool?
BTW AFAIU this is a legal requirement we cannot avoid, even if sometimes
it's avoided by some upstream author
> - Our synopses and descriptions are not casually copy-pasted from the
> project website. We try to rewrite and improve on them if necessary.
AFAIK similar requirements are "enforced" by all other distributions
> - We have to be careful about pushing changes that will cause too many
> rebuilds. We have a core-updates process for that.
Could this be automated by a pre-commit hook?
[...]
>> please can you expand on this? What is that cost of failure?
>
> The cost of failure is mostly in the mind. A commit is something that
> has your name on it and lives on in the repo history *forever*. So, it
> better be good. That's the pressure. I do have one or two commits in the
> guix repo with badly borked commit messages.
OK thanks, I understand
[...]
>> specifically speaking, IMHO in cases like this you should send an
>> email-reply to that bug (patch) explaining the 1% you are unsure of
>
> Yeah, I would. But, often that 1% is too nitpicky to be worth
> reporting. Sometimes, I fix the 1% myself and push. But often, I confess
> that I just leave it to other committers.
I don't imagine a specific use case, but nevermind
[...]
Thank you! Gio'
--
Giovanni Biscuolo
Xelera IT Infrastructures
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
- Re: On commit access, patch review, and remaining healthy, (continued)
- Re: On commit access, patch review, and remaining healthy, zimoun, 2022/06/14
- Re: On commit access, patch review, and remaining healthy, Arun Isaac, 2022/06/15
- Re: On commit access, patch review, and remaining healthy, Ludovic Courtès, 2022/06/15
- Re: On commit access, patch review, and remaining healthy, Paul Jewell, 2022/06/19
- Re: On commit access, patch review, and remaining healthy, Arun Isaac, 2022/06/20
- Re: On commit access, patch review, and remaining healthy, Giovanni Biscuolo, 2022/06/15
- Re: On commit access, patch review, and remaining healthy, Giovanni Biscuolo, 2022/06/08
- Re: On commit access, patch review, and remaining healthy, Arun Isaac, 2022/06/09
Re: On commit access, patch review, and remaining healthy, Giovanni Biscuolo, 2022/06/08
- Re: On commit access, patch review, and remaining healthy, Arun Isaac, 2022/06/09
- Re: On commit access, patch review, and remaining healthy,
Giovanni Biscuolo <=
- Re: On commit access, patch review, and remaining healthy, Maxime Devos, 2022/06/10
- Re: On commit access, patch review, and remaining healthy, Efraim Flashner, 2022/06/10
- Re: On commit access, patch review, and remaining healthy, Giovanni Biscuolo, 2022/06/10
- Re: On commit access, patch review, and remaining healthy, Giovanni Biscuolo, 2022/06/10
Re: On commit access, patch review, and remaining healthy, Thiago Jung Bauermann, 2022/06/11
Re: On commit access, patch review, and remaining healthy, Ludovic Courtès, 2022/06/11
Re: On commit access, patch review, and remaining healthy, zimoun, 2022/06/14
Re: On commit access, patch review, and remaining healthy, Maxim Cournoyer, 2022/06/14
Re: On commit access, patch review, and remaining healthy, Arun Isaac, 2022/06/15
Re: On commit access, patch review, and remaining healthy, Arun Isaac, 2022/06/13