From unknown Mon Jun 23 09:32:29 2025 X-Loop: help-debbugs@gnu.org Subject: [bug#48696] [PATCH 0/3] Documenting commit reverts and revocation Resent-From: Ludovic =?UTF-8?Q?Court=C3=A8s?= Original-Sender: "Debbugs-submit" Resent-CC: guix-patches@gnu.org Resent-Date: Thu, 27 May 2021 12:34:02 +0000 Resent-Message-ID: Resent-Sender: help-debbugs@gnu.org X-GNU-PR-Message: report 48696 X-GNU-PR-Package: guix-patches X-GNU-PR-Keywords: patch To: 48696@debbugs.gnu.org Cc: Ludovic =?UTF-8?Q?Court=C3=A8s?= X-Debbugs-Original-To: guix-patches@gnu.org Received: via spool by submit@debbugs.gnu.org id=B.162211879623503 (code B ref -1); Thu, 27 May 2021 12:34:02 +0000 Received: (at submit) by debbugs.gnu.org; 27 May 2021 12:33:16 +0000 Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1]:50835 helo=debbugs.gnu.org) by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.84_2) (envelope-from ) id 1lmFCN-000670-UU for submit@debbugs.gnu.org; Thu, 27 May 2021 08:33:16 -0400 Received: from lists.gnu.org ([209.51.188.17]:39878) by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.84_2) (envelope-from ) id 1lmFCM-00066t-BF for submit@debbugs.gnu.org; Thu, 27 May 2021 08:33:14 -0400 Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([2001:470:142:3::10]:60350) by lists.gnu.org with esmtps (TLS1.2:ECDHE_RSA_AES_256_GCM_SHA384:256) (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1lmFCM-0004ct-0l for guix-patches@gnu.org; Thu, 27 May 2021 08:33:14 -0400 Received: from fencepost.gnu.org ([2001:470:142:3::e]:42830) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1lmFCL-00054Q-C4; Thu, 27 May 2021 08:33:13 -0400 Received: from [2a01:e0a:1d:7270:af76:b9b:ca24:c465] (port=40494 helo=gnu.org) by fencepost.gnu.org with esmtpsa (TLS1.2:ECDHE_RSA_AES_128_GCM_SHA256:128) (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1lmFCK-0006Ji-CC; Thu, 27 May 2021 08:33:13 -0400 From: Ludovic =?UTF-8?Q?Court=C3=A8s?= Date: Thu, 27 May 2021 14:32:59 +0200 Message-Id: <20210527123259.4115-1-ludo@gnu.org> X-Mailer: git-send-email 2.31.1 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-Spam-Score: -2.3 (--) X-BeenThere: debbugs-submit@debbugs.gnu.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.18 Precedence: list List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Errors-To: debbugs-submit-bounces@debbugs.gnu.org Sender: "Debbugs-submit" X-Spam-Score: -3.3 (---) Hello Guix! Attached is an attempt to: 1. Structure the “Commit Access” section of the manual; 2. Document how to address committers’ mistakes, when to revert commits; 3. Explain under what circumstances maintainers may revoke commit rights. It essentially codifies unwritten rules, but as always, I think it’s better to be explicit about the rules and community expectations. Let me know what you think! I propose to leave a comment period of at least one week, possibly iterating with new versions. Ludo’. Ludovic Courtès (3): doc: Structure the "Commit Access" section. doc: Add "Addressing Mistakes" section. doc: Explain more reasons for commit revocation. doc/contributing.texi | 114 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++-------- 1 file changed, 93 insertions(+), 21 deletions(-) -- 2.31.1 From unknown Mon Jun 23 09:32:29 2025 X-Loop: help-debbugs@gnu.org Subject: [bug#48696] [PATCH 1/3] doc: Structure the "Commit Access" section. References: <20210527123259.4115-1-ludo@gnu.org> In-Reply-To: <20210527123259.4115-1-ludo@gnu.org> Resent-From: Ludovic =?UTF-8?Q?Court=C3=A8s?= Original-Sender: "Debbugs-submit" Resent-CC: guix-patches@gnu.org Resent-Date: Thu, 27 May 2021 12:37:02 +0000 Resent-Message-ID: Resent-Sender: help-debbugs@gnu.org X-GNU-PR-Message: followup 48696 X-GNU-PR-Package: guix-patches X-GNU-PR-Keywords: patch To: 48696@debbugs.gnu.org Cc: Ludovic =?UTF-8?Q?Court=C3=A8s?= Received: via spool by 48696-submit@debbugs.gnu.org id=B48696.162211897423796 (code B ref 48696); Thu, 27 May 2021 12:37:02 +0000 Received: (at 48696) by debbugs.gnu.org; 27 May 2021 12:36:14 +0000 Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1]:50841 helo=debbugs.gnu.org) by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.84_2) (envelope-from ) id 1lmFFG-0006Bk-Be for submit@debbugs.gnu.org; Thu, 27 May 2021 08:36:14 -0400 Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([209.51.188.92]:39098) by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.84_2) (envelope-from ) id 1lmFFE-0006BW-LA for 48696@debbugs.gnu.org; Thu, 27 May 2021 08:36:13 -0400 Received: from fencepost.gnu.org ([2001:470:142:3::e]:42904) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1lmFF7-0006R9-Lw; Thu, 27 May 2021 08:36:07 -0400 Received: from [2a01:e0a:1d:7270:af76:b9b:ca24:c465] (port=40496 helo=gnu.org) by fencepost.gnu.org with esmtpsa (TLS1.2:ECDHE_RSA_AES_128_GCM_SHA256:128) (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1lmFF6-0005Bm-8p; Thu, 27 May 2021 08:36:05 -0400 From: Ludovic =?UTF-8?Q?Court=C3=A8s?= Date: Thu, 27 May 2021 14:35:52 +0200 Message-Id: <20210527123554.4267-1-ludo@gnu.org> X-Mailer: git-send-email 2.31.1 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-Spam-Score: -2.3 (--) X-BeenThere: debbugs-submit@debbugs.gnu.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.18 Precedence: list List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Errors-To: debbugs-submit-bounces@debbugs.gnu.org Sender: "Debbugs-submit" X-Spam-Score: -3.3 (---) * doc/contributing.texi (Commit Access): Add introduction and section heading. Separate OpenPGP setup from commit policy. --- doc/contributing.texi | 59 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++--------------- 1 file changed, 38 insertions(+), 21 deletions(-) diff --git a/doc/contributing.texi b/doc/contributing.texi index cfcae22502..7dc912b4de 100644 --- a/doc/contributing.texi +++ b/doc/contributing.texi @@ -1258,8 +1258,19 @@ this nifty tool! @section Commit Access @cindex commit access, for developers -For frequent contributors, having write access to the repository is -convenient. When you deem it necessary, consider applying for commit +Everyone can contribute to Guix without having commit access +(@pxref{Submitting Patches}). However, for frequent contributors, +having write access to the repository can be convenient. Commit access +should not be thought of as a ``badge of honor'' but rather as a +responsibility a contributor is willing to take to help the project. + +The following sections explain how to get commit access, how to be ready +to push commits, and the policies and community expectations for commits +pushed upstream. + +@subsection Applying for Commit Access + +When you deem it necessary, consider applying for commit access by following these steps: @enumerate @@ -1331,6 +1342,27 @@ review and merging system, which, as a consequence, may lead us to have fewer people with commit access to the main repository. Stay tuned! @end quotation +All commits that are pushed to the central repository on Savannah must +be signed with an OpenPGP key, and the public key should be uploaded to +your user account on Savannah and to public key servers, such as +@code{keys.openpgp.org}. To configure Git to automatically sign +commits, run: + +@example +git config commit.gpgsign true +git config user.signingkey CABBA6EA1DC0FF33 +@end example + +You can prevent yourself from accidentally pushing unsigned commits to +Savannah by using the pre-push Git hook called located at +@file{etc/git/pre-push}: + +@example +cp etc/git/pre-push .git/hooks/pre-push +@end example + +@subsection Commit Policy + If you get commit access, please make sure to follow the policy below (discussions of the policy can take place on @email{guix-devel@@gnu.org}). @@ -1349,25 +1381,6 @@ mailing list for commit notifications (@email{guix-commits@@gnu.org}), so people can notice. Before pushing your changes, make sure to run @code{git pull --rebase}. -All commits that are pushed to the central repository on Savannah must -be signed with an OpenPGP key, and the public key should be uploaded to -your user account on Savannah and to public key servers, such as -@code{keys.openpgp.org}. To configure Git to automatically sign -commits, run: - -@example -git config commit.gpgsign true -git config user.signingkey CABBA6EA1DC0FF33 -@end example - -You can prevent yourself from accidentally pushing unsigned commits to -Savannah by using the pre-push Git hook called located at -@file{etc/git/pre-push}: - -@example -cp etc/git/pre-push .git/hooks/pre-push -@end example - When pushing a commit on behalf of somebody else, please add a @code{Signed-off-by} line at the end of the commit log message---e.g., with @command{git am --signoff}. This improves tracking of who did @@ -1389,12 +1402,16 @@ you're confident, it's OK to commit. That last part is subject to being adjusted, allowing individuals to commit directly on non-controversial changes on parts they’re familiar with. +@subsection Commit Revocation + In order to reduce the possibility of mistakes, committers will have their Savannah account removed from the Guix Savannah project and their key removed from @file{.guix-authorizations} after 12 months of inactivity; they can ask to regain commit access by emailing the maintainers, without going through the vouching process. +@subsection Helping Out + One last thing: the project keeps moving forward because committers not only push their own awesome changes, but also offer some of their time @emph{reviewing} and pushing other people's changes. As a committer, -- 2.31.1 From unknown Mon Jun 23 09:32:29 2025 X-Loop: help-debbugs@gnu.org Subject: [bug#48696] [PATCH 2/3] doc: Add "Addressing Mistakes" section. Resent-From: Ludovic =?UTF-8?Q?Court=C3=A8s?= Original-Sender: "Debbugs-submit" Resent-CC: guix-patches@gnu.org Resent-Date: Thu, 27 May 2021 12:37:02 +0000 Resent-Message-ID: Resent-Sender: help-debbugs@gnu.org X-GNU-PR-Message: followup 48696 X-GNU-PR-Package: guix-patches X-GNU-PR-Keywords: patch To: 48696@debbugs.gnu.org Cc: Ludovic =?UTF-8?Q?Court=C3=A8s?= Received: via spool by 48696-submit@debbugs.gnu.org id=B48696.162211898023814 (code B ref 48696); Thu, 27 May 2021 12:37:02 +0000 Received: (at 48696) by debbugs.gnu.org; 27 May 2021 12:36:20 +0000 Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1]:50844 helo=debbugs.gnu.org) by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.84_2) (envelope-from ) id 1lmFFL-0006C1-Ns for submit@debbugs.gnu.org; Thu, 27 May 2021 08:36:19 -0400 Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([209.51.188.92]:39132) by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.84_2) (envelope-from ) id 1lmFFJ-0006Bc-N7 for 48696@debbugs.gnu.org; Thu, 27 May 2021 08:36:17 -0400 Received: from fencepost.gnu.org ([2001:470:142:3::e]:42908) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1lmFFB-0006Tc-EU; Thu, 27 May 2021 08:36:10 -0400 Received: from [2a01:e0a:1d:7270:af76:b9b:ca24:c465] (port=40496 helo=gnu.org) by fencepost.gnu.org with esmtpsa (TLS1.2:ECDHE_RSA_AES_128_GCM_SHA256:128) (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1lmFF7-0005Bm-Tw; Thu, 27 May 2021 08:36:07 -0400 From: Ludovic =?UTF-8?Q?Court=C3=A8s?= Date: Thu, 27 May 2021 14:35:53 +0200 Message-Id: <20210527123554.4267-2-ludo@gnu.org> X-Mailer: git-send-email 2.31.1 In-Reply-To: <20210527123554.4267-1-ludo@gnu.org> References: <20210527123554.4267-1-ludo@gnu.org> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-Spam-Score: -2.3 (--) X-BeenThere: debbugs-submit@debbugs.gnu.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.18 Precedence: list List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Errors-To: debbugs-submit-bounces@debbugs.gnu.org Sender: "Debbugs-submit" X-Spam-Score: -3.3 (---) * doc/contributing.texi (Addressing Mistakes): New section. --- doc/contributing.texi | 34 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ 1 file changed, 34 insertions(+) diff --git a/doc/contributing.texi b/doc/contributing.texi index 7dc912b4de..8308551261 100644 --- a/doc/contributing.texi +++ b/doc/contributing.texi @@ -1402,6 +1402,40 @@ you're confident, it's OK to commit. That last part is subject to being adjusted, allowing individuals to commit directly on non-controversial changes on parts they’re familiar with. +@subsection Addressing Mistakes + +We all make mistakes. We expect peer review (@pxref{Submitting +Patches}) and tools such as @command{guix lint} (@pxref{Invoking guix +lint}) and the test suite (@pxref{Running the Test Suite}) to catch +issues before they are pushed; yet, mistakes might go through---that +happens to both newcomers and old-timers, and there is nothing to be +ashamed of when it happens. As a community, we expect committers to +recognize and address mistakes as soon as possible. + +Some mistakes can directly affect all users---for instance because they +make @command{guix pull} fail or break core functionality, because they +break major packages (at build time or run time), or because they +introduce known security vulnerabilities. + +@cindex reverting commits +The person who pushed the faulty commit(s) should be at the forefront to +address such an issue in a timely fashion: by pushing a followup commit +to fix it (if possible), or by reverting it to leave time to come up +with a proper fix, and by communicating with other developers about the +problem. + +If the committer is unavailable to address the issue in time, other +committers are entitled to revert the offending commit(s), explaining in +the commit log and on the mailing list what the problem was, with the +goal of leaving time to the original committer and author(s) to propose +a way forward. + +The Guix project values friendly cooperation and a constant effort to +focus on the way forward when issues arise. Committers should lead by +example, notably as a way to encourage contributors and contributors to +be. Blame as well as defensiveness do not have their place in Guix when +addressing genuine mistakes. + @subsection Commit Revocation In order to reduce the possibility of mistakes, committers will have -- 2.31.1 From unknown Mon Jun 23 09:32:29 2025 X-Loop: help-debbugs@gnu.org Subject: [bug#48696] [PATCH 3/3] doc: Explain more reasons for commit revocation. Resent-From: Ludovic =?UTF-8?Q?Court=C3=A8s?= Original-Sender: "Debbugs-submit" Resent-CC: guix-patches@gnu.org Resent-Date: Thu, 27 May 2021 12:37:03 +0000 Resent-Message-ID: Resent-Sender: help-debbugs@gnu.org X-GNU-PR-Message: followup 48696 X-GNU-PR-Package: guix-patches X-GNU-PR-Keywords: patch To: 48696@debbugs.gnu.org Cc: Ludovic =?UTF-8?Q?Court=C3=A8s?= Received: via spool by 48696-submit@debbugs.gnu.org id=B48696.162211898623834 (code B ref 48696); Thu, 27 May 2021 12:37:03 +0000 Received: (at 48696) by debbugs.gnu.org; 27 May 2021 12:36:26 +0000 Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1]:50847 helo=debbugs.gnu.org) by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.84_2) (envelope-from ) id 1lmFFS-0006CM-0n for submit@debbugs.gnu.org; Thu, 27 May 2021 08:36:26 -0400 Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([209.51.188.92]:39154) by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.84_2) (envelope-from ) id 1lmFFQ-0006C0-Es for 48696@debbugs.gnu.org; Thu, 27 May 2021 08:36:24 -0400 Received: from fencepost.gnu.org ([2001:470:142:3::e]:42910) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1lmFFL-0006Yr-7k; Thu, 27 May 2021 08:36:19 -0400 Received: from [2a01:e0a:1d:7270:af76:b9b:ca24:c465] (port=40496 helo=gnu.org) by fencepost.gnu.org with esmtpsa (TLS1.2:ECDHE_RSA_AES_128_GCM_SHA256:128) (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1lmFFB-0005Bm-Nm; Thu, 27 May 2021 08:36:11 -0400 From: Ludovic =?UTF-8?Q?Court=C3=A8s?= Date: Thu, 27 May 2021 14:35:54 +0200 Message-Id: <20210527123554.4267-3-ludo@gnu.org> X-Mailer: git-send-email 2.31.1 In-Reply-To: <20210527123554.4267-1-ludo@gnu.org> References: <20210527123554.4267-1-ludo@gnu.org> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-Spam-Score: -2.3 (--) X-BeenThere: debbugs-submit@debbugs.gnu.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.18 Precedence: list List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Errors-To: debbugs-submit-bounces@debbugs.gnu.org Sender: "Debbugs-submit" X-Spam-Score: -3.3 (---) * doc/contributing.texi (Commit Revocation): Expound. --- doc/contributing.texi | 21 +++++++++++++++++++++ 1 file changed, 21 insertions(+) diff --git a/doc/contributing.texi b/doc/contributing.texi index 8308551261..ec649c8e13 100644 --- a/doc/contributing.texi +++ b/doc/contributing.texi @@ -1444,6 +1444,27 @@ key removed from @file{.guix-authorizations} after 12 months of inactivity; they can ask to regain commit access by emailing the maintainers, without going through the vouching process. +Maintainers@footnote{See @uref{https://guix.gnu.org/en/about} for the +current list of maintainers. You can email them privately at +@email{guix-maintainers@@gnu.org}.} may also revoke an individual's +commit rights, as a last resort, if cooperation with the rest of the +community has caused too much friction---even within the bounds of the +project's code of conduct (@pxref{Contributing}). They would only do so +after public or private discussion with the individual and a clear +notice. Examples of behavior that hinders cooperation and could lead to +such a decision include: + +@itemize +@item repeated violation of the commit policy stated above; +@item repeated failure to take peer criticism into account; +@item breaching trust through a series of grave incidents. +@end itemize + +When maintainers resort to such a decision, they notify developers on +@email{guix-devel@@gnu.org}; inquiries may be sent to +@email{guix-maintainers@@gnu.org}. Depending on the situation, the +individual may still be welcome to contribute. + @subsection Helping Out One last thing: the project keeps moving forward because committers not -- 2.31.1 From unknown Mon Jun 23 09:32:29 2025 X-Loop: help-debbugs@gnu.org Subject: [bug#48696] [PATCH 1/3] doc: Structure the "Commit Access" section. Resent-From: Julien Lepiller Original-Sender: "Debbugs-submit" Resent-CC: guix-patches@gnu.org Resent-Date: Thu, 27 May 2021 13:56:02 +0000 Resent-Message-ID: Resent-Sender: help-debbugs@gnu.org X-GNU-PR-Message: followup 48696 X-GNU-PR-Package: guix-patches X-GNU-PR-Keywords: patch To: Ludovic =?UTF-8?Q?Court=C3=A8s?= ,48696@debbugs.gnu.org Received: via spool by 48696-submit@debbugs.gnu.org id=B48696.162212375117097 (code B ref 48696); Thu, 27 May 2021 13:56:02 +0000 Received: (at 48696) by debbugs.gnu.org; 27 May 2021 13:55:51 +0000 Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1]:52452 helo=debbugs.gnu.org) by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.84_2) (envelope-from ) id 1lmGUJ-0004Rf-7S for submit@debbugs.gnu.org; Thu, 27 May 2021 09:55:51 -0400 Received: from lepiller.eu ([89.234.186.109]:38550) by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.84_2) (envelope-from ) id 1lmGUG-0004RR-S5 for 48696@debbugs.gnu.org; Thu, 27 May 2021 09:55:50 -0400 Received: from lepiller.eu (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by lepiller.eu (OpenSMTPD) with ESMTP id 7cac0340; Thu, 27 May 2021 13:55:46 +0000 (UTC) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed; d=lepiller.eu; h=date :in-reply-to:references:mime-version:content-type :content-transfer-encoding:subject:to:from:message-id; s=dkim; bh=K/VXSVT6cS+nzYt9VLZMswrOCy8nCwnrU9C7ujvbtEI=; b=I9GUCPvgRLUR GSDL0wSwotVuUZDXuwS+jbQEVIVlGn7kCYqmVSV6fhZIMeOCvMM0tFadpCultLNU F4iFO4IPxp4lwAvuXuz1jyYN4l7RWWyuLjH/Obo1L1evYi9c9hKYqS2aVHEC5bj9 FcFZ0q0X6JraE4gSYVIC7DqSW+6Kk8evvH1FzqL9QQ8cr0c99lCTjtovW5JX+jR4 x0GjP37lHMKBrQUuaqxqF+UNLgPoS62mgZfCXTngb+vYLiMHH4LUti4wCsPW5/fu Eufk6CTNt/f4GrTzUWn0UAIzFqxSb6hAZyAAre1IxHu/niFddf8MXKfOAf3s/f4d lss7AK97iQ== Received: by lepiller.eu (OpenSMTPD) with ESMTPSA id 98035e2e (TLSv1.2:ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384:256:NO); Thu, 27 May 2021 13:55:46 +0000 (UTC) Date: Thu, 27 May 2021 09:55:37 -0400 User-Agent: K-9 Mail for Android In-Reply-To: <20210527123554.4267-1-ludo@gnu.org> References: <20210527123259.4115-1-ludo@gnu.org> <20210527123554.4267-1-ludo@gnu.org> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable From: Julien Lepiller Message-ID: <8FB0AFE9-B53B-42F7-8635-D6B4DA763FC3@lepiller.eu> X-Spam-Score: -0.0 (/) X-BeenThere: debbugs-submit@debbugs.gnu.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.18 Precedence: list List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Errors-To: debbugs-submit-bounces@debbugs.gnu.org Sender: "Debbugs-submit" X-Spam-Score: -1.0 (-) Le 27 mai 2021 08:35:52 GMT-04:00, "Ludovic Court=C3=A8s" = a =C3=A9crit : >* doc/contributing=2Etexi (Commit Access): Add introduction and section >heading=2E Separate OpenPGP setup from commit policy=2E >--- > doc/contributing=2Etexi | 59 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++--------------- > 1 file changed, 38 insertions(+), 21 deletions(-) > >diff --git a/doc/contributing=2Etexi b/doc/contributing=2Etexi >index cfcae22502=2E=2E7dc912b4de 100644 >--- a/doc/contributing=2Etexi >+++ b/doc/contributing=2Etexi >@@ -1258,8 +1258,19 @@ this nifty tool! > @section Commit Access >=20 > @cindex commit access, for developers >-For frequent contributors, having write access to the repository is >-convenient=2E When you deem it necessary, consider applying for commit >+Everyone can contribute to Guix without having commit access >+(@pxref{Submitting Patches})=2E However, for frequent contributors, >+having write access to the repository can be convenient=2E Commit >access >+should not be thought of as a ``badge of honor'' but rather as a >+responsibility a contributor is willing to take to help the project=2E >+ >+The following sections explain how to get commit access, how to be >ready >+to push commits, and the policies and community expectations for >commits >+pushed upstream=2E >+ >+@subsection Applying for Commit Access >+ >+When you deem it necessary, consider applying for commit > access by following these steps: >=20 > @enumerate >@@ -1331,6 +1342,27 @@ review and merging system, which, as a >consequence, may lead us to have > fewer people with commit access to the main repository=2E Stay tuned! > @end quotation >=20 >+All commits that are pushed to the central repository on Savannah must >+be signed with an OpenPGP key, and the public key should be uploaded >to >+your user account on Savannah and to public key servers, such as >+@code{keys=2Eopenpgp=2Eorg}=2E To configure Git to automatically sign >+commits, run: >+ >+@example >+git config commit=2Egpgsign true >+git config user=2Esigningkey CABBA6EA1DC0FF33 >+@end example >+ >+You can prevent yourself from accidentally pushing unsigned commits to >+Savannah by using the pre-push Git hook called located at >+@file{etc/git/pre-push}: This sentence sounds weird=2E Isn't "called" superfluous? >+ >+@example >+cp etc/git/pre-push =2Egit/hooks/pre-push >+@end example >+ >+@subsection Commit Policy >+ > If you get commit access, please make sure to follow > the policy below (discussions of the policy can take place on > @email{guix-devel@@gnu=2Eorg})=2E >@@ -1349,25 +1381,6 @@ mailing list for commit notifications >(@email{guix-commits@@gnu=2Eorg}), > so people can notice=2E Before pushing your changes, make sure to run > @code{git pull --rebase}=2E >=20 >-All commits that are pushed to the central repository on Savannah must >-be signed with an OpenPGP key, and the public key should be uploaded >to >-your user account on Savannah and to public key servers, such as >-@code{keys=2Eopenpgp=2Eorg}=2E To configure Git to automatically sign >-commits, run: >- >-@example >-git config commit=2Egpgsign true >-git config user=2Esigningkey CABBA6EA1DC0FF33 >-@end example >- >-You can prevent yourself from accidentally pushing unsigned commits to >-Savannah by using the pre-push Git hook called located at >-@file{etc/git/pre-push}: >- >-@example >-cp etc/git/pre-push =2Egit/hooks/pre-push >-@end example >- > When pushing a commit on behalf of somebody else, please add a > @code{Signed-off-by} line at the end of the commit log message---e=2Eg= =2E, > with @command{git am --signoff}=2E This improves tracking of who did >@@ -1389,12 +1402,16 @@ you're confident, it's OK to commit=2E >That last part is subject to being adjusted, allowing individuals to >commit > directly on non-controversial changes on parts they=E2=80=99re familiar = with=2E >=20 >+@subsection Commit Revocation >+ > In order to reduce the possibility of mistakes, committers will have >their Savannah account removed from the Guix Savannah project and their > key removed from @file{=2Eguix-authorizations} after 12 months of > inactivity; they can ask to regain commit access by emailing the > maintainers, without going through the vouching process=2E >=20 >+@subsection Helping Out >+ >One last thing: the project keeps moving forward because committers not > only push their own awesome changes, but also offer some of their time > @emph{reviewing} and pushing other people's changes=2E As a committer, From unknown Mon Jun 23 09:32:29 2025 X-Loop: help-debbugs@gnu.org Subject: [bug#48696] [PATCH 0/3] Documenting commit reverts and revocation Resent-From: Leo Famulari Original-Sender: "Debbugs-submit" Resent-CC: guix-patches@gnu.org Resent-Date: Thu, 27 May 2021 14:17:02 +0000 Resent-Message-ID: Resent-Sender: help-debbugs@gnu.org X-GNU-PR-Message: followup 48696 X-GNU-PR-Package: guix-patches X-GNU-PR-Keywords: patch To: Ludovic =?UTF-8?Q?Court=C3=A8s?= Cc: 48696@debbugs.gnu.org Received: via spool by 48696-submit@debbugs.gnu.org id=B48696.162212499818956 (code B ref 48696); Thu, 27 May 2021 14:17:02 +0000 Received: (at 48696) by debbugs.gnu.org; 27 May 2021 14:16:38 +0000 Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1]:52471 helo=debbugs.gnu.org) by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.84_2) (envelope-from ) id 1lmGoP-0004vg-UB for submit@debbugs.gnu.org; Thu, 27 May 2021 10:16:38 -0400 Received: from out3-smtp.messagingengine.com ([66.111.4.27]:57107) by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.84_2) (envelope-from ) id 1lmGoO-0004vT-MJ for 48696@debbugs.gnu.org; Thu, 27 May 2021 10:16:37 -0400 Received: from compute3.internal (compute3.nyi.internal [10.202.2.43]) by mailout.nyi.internal (Postfix) with ESMTP id 45FC65C0117; Thu, 27 May 2021 10:16:31 -0400 (EDT) Received: from mailfrontend1 ([10.202.2.162]) by compute3.internal (MEProxy); Thu, 27 May 2021 10:16:31 -0400 DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=famulari.name; h=date:from:to:cc:subject:message-id:references:mime-version :content-type:content-transfer-encoding:in-reply-to; s=mesmtp; bh=sFf1Uc8mnCdrYQkkabWLBUXGt6Z287hASJRTrzlnrw0=; b=BiH1zliWK1KN 6DbmobcJN8wK6p0n+ldXtIN2AB0qHtJbBWu4pnrryV1yIk9BDFnJHxzPmSGAZzQE 4t6k5tU1YkPkc3Zzx1gUAnwPM11zS+YxsjV448ZPG2EjiY2gL3YO9JG/UcuVyBA/ KlucHR9ENwt9a43p6asO8ZbyhRsGoYU= DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d= messagingengine.com; h=cc:content-transfer-encoding:content-type :date:from:in-reply-to:message-id:mime-version:references :subject:to:x-me-proxy:x-me-proxy:x-me-sender:x-me-sender :x-sasl-enc; s=fm2; bh=sFf1Uc8mnCdrYQkkabWLBUXGt6Z287hASJRTrzlnr w0=; b=haYQXf9CPWt4zXJgrUCjJiVbWNzOpupvGpKiNTlAitUPFoxkl3kuVFPit cgR0deQjO5W3A/+LrjS0z8aQImWIdnZ9NWrcUowSEpMoWmzP/CoPgfvDMfYE9dnx m9AZh3kszm0HKgLJ8rkxEgbHEYSH9Qg7txNpJg/dbw6GOEsqgAzZqEAXnjA8k4BG dpk4mbh1AsitM3d/o5cEnpOlTuOepFeyXN6JlfHNGe3SzGcdMrMOmIGDiqK69hSk GbfhDgY5SDHdTIi3RXp2QxxpeXKdA6yQJmgHdbffo3XqbLe3BPq6Y7YStDVzZnEQ 790LQtumBWXC/2khV4xf8Bon9tFTA== X-ME-Sender: X-ME-Proxy-Cause: gggruggvucftvghtrhhoucdtuddrgeduledrvdekhedgjeehucetufdoteggodetrfdotf fvucfrrhhofhhilhgvmecuhfgrshhtofgrihhlpdfqfgfvpdfurfetoffkrfgpnffqhgen uceurghilhhouhhtmecufedttdenucesvcftvggtihhpihgvnhhtshculddquddttddmne cujfgurhepfffhvffukfhfgggtugfgjgesthekredttddtjeenucfhrhhomhepnfgvohcu hfgrmhhulhgrrhhiuceolhgvohesfhgrmhhulhgrrhhirdhnrghmvgeqnecuggftrfgrth htvghrnhepgeejgeeghedtudfgffdutddvffefffejkeffffevffehgedvvdeutdffkeej jeejnecukfhppedutddtrdduuddrudeiledruddukeenucevlhhushhtvghrufhiiigvpe dtnecurfgrrhgrmhepmhgrihhlfhhrohhmpehlvghosehfrghmuhhlrghrihdrnhgrmhgv X-ME-Proxy: Received: from localhost (pool-100-11-169-118.phlapa.fios.verizon.net [100.11.169.118]) by mail.messagingengine.com (Postfix) with ESMTPA; Thu, 27 May 2021 10:16:30 -0400 (EDT) Date: Thu, 27 May 2021 10:16:28 -0400 From: Leo Famulari Message-ID: References: <20210527123259.4115-1-ludo@gnu.org> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: inline Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit In-Reply-To: <20210527123259.4115-1-ludo@gnu.org> X-Spam-Score: -0.7 (/) X-BeenThere: debbugs-submit@debbugs.gnu.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.18 Precedence: list List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Errors-To: debbugs-submit-bounces@debbugs.gnu.org Sender: "Debbugs-submit" X-Spam-Score: -1.7 (-) On Thu, May 27, 2021 at 02:32:59PM +0200, Ludovic Courtès wrote: > Hello Guix! > > Attached is an attempt to: > > 1. Structure the “Commit Access” section of the manual; > > 2. Document how to address committers’ mistakes, when to revert > commits; > > 3. Explain under what circumstances maintainers may revoke commit > rights. > > It essentially codifies unwritten rules, but as always, I think it’s > better to be explicit about the rules and community expectations. > > Let me know what you think! I propose to leave a comment period > of at least one week, possibly iterating with new versions. Thanks for putting this together. It looks good to me! From unknown Mon Jun 23 09:32:29 2025 X-Loop: help-debbugs@gnu.org Subject: [bug#48696] [PATCH 1/3] doc: Structure the "Commit Access" section. Resent-From: Maxime Devos Original-Sender: "Debbugs-submit" Resent-CC: guix-patches@gnu.org Resent-Date: Thu, 27 May 2021 19:11:01 +0000 Resent-Message-ID: Resent-Sender: help-debbugs@gnu.org X-GNU-PR-Message: followup 48696 X-GNU-PR-Package: guix-patches X-GNU-PR-Keywords: patch To: Ludovic =?UTF-8?Q?Court=C3=A8s?= , 48696@debbugs.gnu.org Received: via spool by 48696-submit@debbugs.gnu.org id=B48696.1622142609688 (code B ref 48696); Thu, 27 May 2021 19:11:01 +0000 Received: (at 48696) by debbugs.gnu.org; 27 May 2021 19:10:09 +0000 Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1]:52796 helo=debbugs.gnu.org) by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.84_2) (envelope-from ) id 1lmLOT-0000B2-CA for submit@debbugs.gnu.org; Thu, 27 May 2021 15:10:09 -0400 Received: from michel.telenet-ops.be ([195.130.137.88]:48020) by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.84_2) (envelope-from ) id 1lmLOR-0000Aq-DB for 48696@debbugs.gnu.org; Thu, 27 May 2021 15:10:08 -0400 Received: from ptr-bvsjgyjmffd7q9timvx.18120a2.ip6.access.telenet.be ([IPv6:2a02:1811:8c09:9d00:aaf1:9810:a0b8:a55d]) by michel.telenet-ops.be with bizsmtp id 9vA52500F0mfAB406vA5fL; Thu, 27 May 2021 21:10:05 +0200 Message-ID: <53c9218bbf5b72e0b159014e424aeb8782d4d457.camel@telenet.be> From: Maxime Devos Date: Thu, 27 May 2021 21:10:05 +0200 In-Reply-To: <20210527123554.4267-1-ludo@gnu.org> References: <20210527123259.4115-1-ludo@gnu.org> <20210527123554.4267-1-ludo@gnu.org> Content-Type: multipart/signed; micalg="pgp-sha512"; protocol="application/pgp-signature"; boundary="=-IvrOrco/8VoSXyaDhB1/" User-Agent: Evolution 3.34.2 MIME-Version: 1.0 DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=telenet.be; s=r21; t=1622142605; bh=48HE9x4MrXtrUYeBLZhE1swdmdJm/Sxqa7Mbnv8SkNM=; h=Subject:From:To:Date:In-Reply-To:References; b=VbFMryLQY9pH5pVZE1OIdIl4BVPGIz1gGPV1yDjwAP2OmQzMfiboBymyPRqGh5ECD 2B0DDQi74QElqLVgJLvNnkTGoe+0ejOQW6hXLgJacpQss4k8lR1HXEiZUBg3eApHC2 49ZXq26st2UHX1wAv7EeJI+lF+pe5svfCUcilnVbhP3YQi9s5MY7oZUgrjC5B3plZP 3NszAmnNcZTXE8wqn5zMWsmpAzBHxKT35k5Shdhtf+N+InQ8bi1j6t/aLKwJTAycGV QlbBuH1SRFqxxGxBKOs2flO87RT8b4ht43WBS4JOTJyQ336Zl8jzDKkqeBbE7f1/FE NcFVFcE1N+OOQ== X-Spam-Score: -0.7 (/) X-BeenThere: debbugs-submit@debbugs.gnu.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.18 Precedence: list List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Errors-To: debbugs-submit-bounces@debbugs.gnu.org Sender: "Debbugs-submit" X-Spam-Score: -1.7 (-) --=-IvrOrco/8VoSXyaDhB1/ Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Ludovic Court=C3=A8s schreef op do 27-05-2021 om 14:35 [+0200]: > +All commits that are pushed to the central repository on Savannah must > +be signed with an OpenPGP key, and the public key should be uploaded to > +your user account on Savannah and to public key servers, such as > +@code{keys.openpgp.org}. To configure Git to automatically sign > +commits, run: > + > +@example > +git config commit.gpgsign true > +git config user.signingkey CABBA6EA1DC0FF33 > +@end example Is that meant to represent =E2=80=98cabbage and coffee=E2=80=99 in l33t? Maybe replace this with something like +@example > +git config commit.gpgsign true > +# Substitute the fingerprint of your public PGP key > +git config user.signingkey CABBA6EA1DC0FF33 > +@end example Basic, I know, but people have to learn the basics from somewhere, so maybe best be explicit here. > + [... some newlines after @section{...} ] These extra newlines could go directly into 'master' I guess. The rest of [PATCH 1/3] seems ok to me? Greetings, Maxime. --=-IvrOrco/8VoSXyaDhB1/ Content-Type: application/pgp-signature; name="signature.asc" Content-Description: This is a digitally signed message part Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- iI0EABYKADUWIQTB8z7iDFKP233XAR9J4+4iGRcl7gUCYK/ujRccbWF4aW1lZGV2 b3NAdGVsZW5ldC5iZQAKCRBJ4+4iGRcl7jmZAQD7TBUVWashoIa/4RIpvybic5d5 ijDr/rwVbqww95XoCgD+KNwzET8g3Dw9rsMSmO+g5wS3mmvf0KVNSdPPYQlOTwM= =FryL -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --=-IvrOrco/8VoSXyaDhB1/-- From unknown Mon Jun 23 09:32:29 2025 X-Loop: help-debbugs@gnu.org Subject: [bug#48696] [PATCH 3/3] doc: Explain more reasons for commit revocation. Resent-From: Maxime Devos Original-Sender: "Debbugs-submit" Resent-CC: guix-patches@gnu.org Resent-Date: Thu, 27 May 2021 19:14:01 +0000 Resent-Message-ID: Resent-Sender: help-debbugs@gnu.org X-GNU-PR-Message: followup 48696 X-GNU-PR-Package: guix-patches X-GNU-PR-Keywords: patch To: Ludovic =?UTF-8?Q?Court=C3=A8s?= , 48696@debbugs.gnu.org Received: via spool by 48696-submit@debbugs.gnu.org id=B48696.1622142796992 (code B ref 48696); Thu, 27 May 2021 19:14:01 +0000 Received: (at 48696) by debbugs.gnu.org; 27 May 2021 19:13:16 +0000 Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1]:52805 helo=debbugs.gnu.org) by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.84_2) (envelope-from ) id 1lmLRU-0000Fw-1f for submit@debbugs.gnu.org; Thu, 27 May 2021 15:13:16 -0400 Received: from albert.telenet-ops.be ([195.130.137.90]:42066) by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.84_2) (envelope-from ) id 1lmLRR-0000Fl-UK for 48696@debbugs.gnu.org; Thu, 27 May 2021 15:13:14 -0400 Received: from ptr-bvsjgyjmffd7q9timvx.18120a2.ip6.access.telenet.be ([IPv6:2a02:1811:8c09:9d00:aaf1:9810:a0b8:a55d]) by albert.telenet-ops.be with bizsmtp id 9vDC2500D0mfAB406vDCKV; Thu, 27 May 2021 21:13:12 +0200 Message-ID: <1e92fa266926fc0bba560f9775727e518f8f9a9e.camel@telenet.be> From: Maxime Devos Date: Thu, 27 May 2021 21:13:12 +0200 In-Reply-To: <20210527123554.4267-3-ludo@gnu.org> References: <20210527123554.4267-1-ludo@gnu.org> <20210527123554.4267-3-ludo@gnu.org> Content-Type: multipart/signed; micalg="pgp-sha512"; protocol="application/pgp-signature"; boundary="=-aLyv8LnqiELrGAhIW8Jv" User-Agent: Evolution 3.34.2 MIME-Version: 1.0 DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=telenet.be; s=r21; t=1622142792; bh=2iZe7DaP8X0N3gBpUZqEmaktWmbyRKAlDfQq51Tkbas=; h=Subject:From:To:Date:In-Reply-To:References; b=eNDMUybky0EuWymOHDarsmMl5CcXNAMyGqF7L/LOAfhzBo9frNUmLm6b2o1nWdad/ mHmd9NDclH+qipOD6NS75F3sODGiGTvZW8aZtWOXIEdQUnngwC0SCo1wAKW4Udx83X Il6hWbEozqvFiYWMCvHq8M5YM0IxO8fDtbpaoo3amSBOTbGaDiwn4ifPHFH5eWJm7c FuLkGPu7fP4rNIYcSoM/RhhwQ01s9PdplaPMKuf2d2T61ZisYgTpDgovUi35BF167f OTixH/bl0+r3BaH0JmxAmAz96PFJ9l0o0MtJGUDWvY9Re1Yoy66klsW0Gt8p5bZUdp tFV5991qF8/Ng== X-Spam-Score: -0.7 (/) X-BeenThere: debbugs-submit@debbugs.gnu.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.18 Precedence: list List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Errors-To: debbugs-submit-bounces@debbugs.gnu.org Sender: "Debbugs-submit" X-Spam-Score: -1.7 (-) --=-aLyv8LnqiELrGAhIW8Jv Content-Type: text/plain Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable PATCH 2/3 and PATCH 3/3 also seem good to me. Greetings, Maxime. --=-aLyv8LnqiELrGAhIW8Jv Content-Type: application/pgp-signature; name="signature.asc" Content-Description: This is a digitally signed message part Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- iI0EABYKADUWIQTB8z7iDFKP233XAR9J4+4iGRcl7gUCYK/vSBccbWF4aW1lZGV2 b3NAdGVsZW5ldC5iZQAKCRBJ4+4iGRcl7ggfAP9eO0a/rRsugyGa2W7KVI7VTrOt njXQUh5O6bD4jlf2xwD/bdy/h2XHO/CB01P6j03dZjS0Y/aRFmloRJCYPqTT5QM= =MDbW -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --=-aLyv8LnqiELrGAhIW8Jv-- From unknown Mon Jun 23 09:32:29 2025 X-Loop: help-debbugs@gnu.org Subject: [bug#48696] [PATCH 2/3] doc: Add "Addressing Mistakes" section. Resent-From: Christopher Baines Original-Sender: "Debbugs-submit" Resent-CC: guix-patches@gnu.org Resent-Date: Thu, 27 May 2021 19:20:01 +0000 Resent-Message-ID: Resent-Sender: help-debbugs@gnu.org X-GNU-PR-Message: followup 48696 X-GNU-PR-Package: guix-patches X-GNU-PR-Keywords: patch To: Ludovic =?UTF-8?Q?Court=C3=A8s?= Cc: 48696@debbugs.gnu.org Received: via spool by 48696-submit@debbugs.gnu.org id=B48696.16221431611601 (code B ref 48696); Thu, 27 May 2021 19:20:01 +0000 Received: (at 48696) by debbugs.gnu.org; 27 May 2021 19:19:21 +0000 Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1]:52815 helo=debbugs.gnu.org) by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.84_2) (envelope-from ) id 1lmLXM-0000Pl-U7 for submit@debbugs.gnu.org; Thu, 27 May 2021 15:19:21 -0400 Received: from mira.cbaines.net ([212.71.252.8]:51340) by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.84_2) (envelope-from ) id 1lmLXL-0000Pd-Nj for 48696@debbugs.gnu.org; Thu, 27 May 2021 15:19:20 -0400 Received: from localhost (unknown [IPv6:2a02:8010:68c1:0:8ac0:b4c7:f5c8:7caa]) by mira.cbaines.net (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id E7B8B27BC78; Thu, 27 May 2021 20:19:18 +0100 (BST) Received: from capella (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by localhost (OpenSMTPD) with ESMTP id 3b5f4342; Thu, 27 May 2021 19:19:18 +0000 (UTC) References: <20210527123554.4267-1-ludo@gnu.org> <20210527123554.4267-2-ludo@gnu.org> User-agent: mu4e 1.4.15; emacs 27.2 From: Christopher Baines In-reply-to: <20210527123554.4267-2-ludo@gnu.org> Date: Thu, 27 May 2021 20:19:15 +0100 Message-ID: <87y2c0f0i4.fsf@cbaines.net> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/signed; boundary="=-=-="; micalg=pgp-sha512; protocol="application/pgp-signature" X-Spam-Score: -0.0 (/) X-BeenThere: debbugs-submit@debbugs.gnu.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.18 Precedence: list List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Errors-To: debbugs-submit-bounces@debbugs.gnu.org Sender: "Debbugs-submit" X-Spam-Score: -1.0 (-) --=-=-= Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Ludovic Court=C3=A8s writes: > * doc/contributing.texi (Addressing Mistakes): New section. > --- > doc/contributing.texi | 34 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ > 1 file changed, 34 insertions(+) > > diff --git a/doc/contributing.texi b/doc/contributing.texi > index 7dc912b4de..8308551261 100644 > --- a/doc/contributing.texi > +++ b/doc/contributing.texi > @@ -1402,6 +1402,40 @@ you're confident, it's OK to commit. > That last part is subject to being adjusted, allowing individuals to com= mit > directly on non-controversial changes on parts they=E2=80=99re familiar = with. >=20=20 > +@subsection Addressing Mistakes > + > +We all make mistakes. We expect peer review (@pxref{Submitting > +Patches}) and tools such as @command{guix lint} (@pxref{Invoking guix > +lint}) and the test suite (@pxref{Running the Test Suite}) to catch > +issues before they are pushed; yet, mistakes might go through---that > +happens to both newcomers and old-timers, and there is nothing to be > +ashamed of when it happens. As a community, we expect committers to > +recognize and address mistakes as soon as possible. > + > +Some mistakes can directly affect all users---for instance because they > +make @command{guix pull} fail or break core functionality, because they > +break major packages (at build time or run time), or because they > +introduce known security vulnerabilities. > + > +@cindex reverting commits > +The person who pushed the faulty commit(s) should be at the forefront to > +address such an issue in a timely fashion: by pushing a followup commit > +to fix it (if possible), or by reverting it to leave time to come up > +with a proper fix, and by communicating with other developers about the > +problem. > + > +If the committer is unavailable to address the issue in time, other > +committers are entitled to revert the offending commit(s), explaining in > +the commit log and on the mailing list what the problem was, with the > +goal of leaving time to the original committer and author(s) to propose > +a way forward. > + > +The Guix project values friendly cooperation and a constant effort to > +focus on the way forward when issues arise. Committers should lead by > +example, notably as a way to encourage contributors and contributors to > +be. Blame as well as defensiveness do not have their place in Guix when > +addressing genuine mistakes. I too would like to see less blame, but one factor is how things are framed and the language used. On the language here, "mistake" is a word I would generally avoid if the aim is avoid blaming someone, since mistakes are made by a person or set of people. I'd prefer a term like "problem", since I don't perceieve that as directly linked to a person or set of people. On the bit about the "person who pushed the faulty commits" (so, person to blame...) I'd much prefer an emphisis on group responsibility to mitigate the impact of problems quickly, and understand the factors that led to that problems in the first place. That avoids assigning blame, rather than the process pushing responsibility to the person to blame ("person who pushed the faulty commit(s)"). On this same thread, I'd like to see less blaming in the form of asking people to "explain". When there's a problem, and you ask someone to explain, I would interpret that as "I'm blaming you for this, please give your account of how the mistake was made", to which the person can either answer explaining the details as to why they are to blame, or can disagree with the implicit assertion that they are to blame. To avoid assigning blame, one can just ask someone to "describe" what happened, which I wouldn't interpret as being loaded with the same implicit assertion. --=-=-= Content-Type: application/pgp-signature; name="signature.asc" -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- iQKlBAEBCgCPFiEEPonu50WOcg2XVOCyXiijOwuE9XcFAmCv8LNfFIAAAAAALgAo aXNzdWVyLWZwckBub3RhdGlvbnMub3BlbnBncC5maWZ0aGhvcnNlbWFuLm5ldDNF ODlFRUU3NDU4RTcyMEQ5NzU0RTBCMjVFMjhBMzNCMEI4NEY1NzcRHG1haWxAY2Jh aW5lcy5uZXQACgkQXiijOwuE9Xc48A//YgEpbNOW8DOT17E3DEYQm2u4ci+ChAB/ rmQ9fROQ7UYeB5Kki7TTKrPy25F8Gd+wimkwNvBEHp12drxemTlzKGyXK8nIBLwz ruW0kb9+FnNtloVsMYKfpZ1wNM6UIaTqv+kOUm0Y24oXuMS+5J4pQNtoqsK0EHsw qNybzVCHhOgPMFJpbmcTP0Kl2aGY3P4FUo3HeBZUbGiyvezoUvIPVZvyJFwBnn9W k2BDIm/yDrEY1xJmvZs7LcSL+SOr3yXF59koF3PbUmy6dOfQCJvkPizIBQOd7iET 90Bxy7tU60kXQ5ZRvUJVxV17NT143zdRp4RHj3WFkDbQ09WqLKwSyODQyATFXSFY ERwvWSnntjtdy4unOBGLmR3Dz6WcaA6IC31HyxPRHxgT9b8R9hG4oTzJP5MsNvBc oqsYb01V7xoumFz/yXw4avsiEL91mfORpfrkxseIAO5zg1BakkfFtKrj7WmmZzjm 5bJ6DEr+4WAePzoOCTcyC9iJz9bcsuTw+3buvYTbmp5I4yJa/9HRkUAAELVrBqky /eTPGnLXLVDj4lP/WrYY/xjvojeUEJiA3UL4dQRX0D5WaLUd2p9m7PPs9b+JVt0t Gwoluc409QRp+XvVISw+EDJvnlWA9aUy/cT3jls+ltHnYFd6K43Fkq1ALVuYkl3q mA3obbgRte0= =RVx2 -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --=-=-=-- From unknown Mon Jun 23 09:32:29 2025 X-Loop: help-debbugs@gnu.org Subject: [bug#48696] [PATCH 3/3] doc: Explain more reasons for commit revocation. Resent-From: Christopher Baines Original-Sender: "Debbugs-submit" Resent-CC: guix-patches@gnu.org Resent-Date: Thu, 27 May 2021 20:09:02 +0000 Resent-Message-ID: Resent-Sender: help-debbugs@gnu.org X-GNU-PR-Message: followup 48696 X-GNU-PR-Package: guix-patches X-GNU-PR-Keywords: patch To: Ludovic =?UTF-8?Q?Court=C3=A8s?= Cc: 48696@debbugs.gnu.org Received: via spool by 48696-submit@debbugs.gnu.org id=B48696.16221460836306 (code B ref 48696); Thu, 27 May 2021 20:09:02 +0000 Received: (at 48696) by debbugs.gnu.org; 27 May 2021 20:08:03 +0000 Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1]:52861 helo=debbugs.gnu.org) by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.84_2) (envelope-from ) id 1lmMIU-0001dd-KP for submit@debbugs.gnu.org; Thu, 27 May 2021 16:08:02 -0400 Received: from mira.cbaines.net ([212.71.252.8]:51384) by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.84_2) (envelope-from ) id 1lmMIS-0001dE-RH for 48696@debbugs.gnu.org; Thu, 27 May 2021 16:08:01 -0400 Received: from localhost (unknown [IPv6:2a02:8010:68c1:0:8ac0:b4c7:f5c8:7caa]) by mira.cbaines.net (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 0BA1527BC78; Thu, 27 May 2021 21:08:00 +0100 (BST) Received: from capella (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by localhost (OpenSMTPD) with ESMTP id 954d37c7; Thu, 27 May 2021 20:07:59 +0000 (UTC) References: <20210527123554.4267-1-ludo@gnu.org> <20210527123554.4267-3-ludo@gnu.org> User-agent: mu4e 1.4.15; emacs 27.2 From: Christopher Baines In-reply-to: <20210527123554.4267-3-ludo@gnu.org> Date: Thu, 27 May 2021 21:07:57 +0100 Message-ID: <87v974ey8y.fsf@cbaines.net> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/signed; boundary="=-=-="; micalg=pgp-sha512; protocol="application/pgp-signature" X-Spam-Score: -0.0 (/) X-BeenThere: debbugs-submit@debbugs.gnu.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.18 Precedence: list List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Errors-To: debbugs-submit-bounces@debbugs.gnu.org Sender: "Debbugs-submit" X-Spam-Score: -1.0 (-) --=-=-= Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Ludovic Court=C3=A8s writes: > * doc/contributing.texi (Commit Revocation): Expound. > --- > doc/contributing.texi | 21 +++++++++++++++++++++ > 1 file changed, 21 insertions(+) > > diff --git a/doc/contributing.texi b/doc/contributing.texi > index 8308551261..ec649c8e13 100644 > --- a/doc/contributing.texi > +++ b/doc/contributing.texi > @@ -1444,6 +1444,27 @@ key removed from @file{.guix-authorizations} after= 12 months of > inactivity; they can ask to regain commit access by emailing the > maintainers, without going through the vouching process. > > +Maintainers@footnote{See @uref{https://guix.gnu.org/en/about} for the > +current list of maintainers. You can email them privately at > +@email{guix-maintainers@@gnu.org}.} may also revoke an individual's > +commit rights, as a last resort, if cooperation with the rest of the > +community has caused too much friction---even within the bounds of the > +project's code of conduct (@pxref{Contributing}). They would only do so > +after public or private discussion with the individual and a clear > +notice. Examples of behavior that hinders cooperation and could lead to > +such a decision include: > + > +@itemize > +@item repeated violation of the commit policy stated above; > +@item repeated failure to take peer criticism into account; > +@item breaching trust through a series of grave incidents. > +@end itemize > + > +When maintainers resort to such a decision, they notify developers on > +@email{guix-devel@@gnu.org}; inquiries may be sent to > +@email{guix-maintainers@@gnu.org}. Depending on the situation, the > +individual may still be welcome to contribute. > + > @subsection Helping Out > > One last thing: the project keeps moving forward because committers not Since the project code of conduct sets out behavioural standards, including mandating "Gracefully accepting constructive criticism" and "Showing empathy towards other community members", I think that combined with "following the relevant processes" already covers what you're setting out here? I was shocked by [1], which from memory is the first time a technical measure has been used to push a contributor away from the project (at least that's my interpretation of the effect/intent). I think the future use of revoking individuals commit access would be good to discuss. 1: https://lists.gnu.org/archive/html/guix-devel/2021-04/msg00489.html In abstract, in my opinion, I can only think of three scenarios for removing someones commit access when they're actively using it: =2D Clear violation of the code of conduct I don't think it's helpful to set out stuff about conduct in other places, particularly bits about unacceptable conduct. If the code of conduct is wrong or not sufficient, it should be revised. =2D Suspected malicious intent Like they didn't just introduce some reference to some dodgy release tarball for a package, but it seems like this could have been done intentionally. =2D Process problem for giving out commit access There's a process and people involved, so it's fair to say that problems can occur. Obviously it's not ideal, but if the process wasn't followed correctly, or if it's been updated and in hindsight different decisions would have been made, I think that's reason enough to apologise, and remove someones commit access. --=-=-= Content-Type: application/pgp-signature; name="signature.asc" -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- iQKlBAEBCgCPFiEEPonu50WOcg2XVOCyXiijOwuE9XcFAmCv/B1fFIAAAAAALgAo aXNzdWVyLWZwckBub3RhdGlvbnMub3BlbnBncC5maWZ0aGhvcnNlbWFuLm5ldDNF ODlFRUU3NDU4RTcyMEQ5NzU0RTBCMjVFMjhBMzNCMEI4NEY1NzcRHG1haWxAY2Jh aW5lcy5uZXQACgkQXiijOwuE9XfADg//ZyDdxgEMFtb4gPwTBg+poPMs9UtPffHD UjvUxLE/tFAVc2XmNbb+y39pvRzoKIvv+LSNyKp+cYHP+7cmZYic4skrrKqqyWG5 vVlxqrLoH5W3WLAofP/mU3WlSuoN3auCzFZbJ4nmL38YL3kzv0T4lHeT2hGH7+fK +6GeZ6GKZposh4UpABb2M3Q6FRnnIqRlIxHgnG9hg3SKtNF4zPobTeVbxepu5qsx vXXTeF2XHVTL/P3LyT+iQHXtF8gNJXbBJ4HI8sNhq4FYV76hNtOMIJntxf5UyaH7 oFs3D8tzHTtXU2r7/PS7SM/VluusUsD3fvB8gDdQbtYnxT64SZYQ9TjTGmCxXkCV Fptn/rJJPSlRHiMniDUu6yCEj/I+ks42ytVusP1hsqHMMRW6iTdVThh22JWnYkNj 2Dcqp1UTYpaWkQIp5BS2FLU0J+PfAxGoX5BWSuNKfJfOg+MznYVB1F2KVBD/w2p0 QmyYfFgFu3azP9E4ENNkCInqg0MDBbBh+Ih2W2YlC6jYY4qA3bC08dc9PNMdneVI mWCHtKkHqnRFEZHT6ysvt9mYAhPcqmv+U+hFPFTasEqhku2d/2YwHV5BaLVY5Gum cpqWrVfh+oN3a7KuoHAxOwAv6ZJfxHkaJbx16zwhHfS036lPpTI6RaOLEudL9nJM qSJ8i/fwYqI= =W42X -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --=-=-=-- From unknown Mon Jun 23 09:32:29 2025 X-Loop: help-debbugs@gnu.org Subject: [bug#48696] [PATCH 1/3] doc: Structure the "Commit Access" section. Resent-From: Ludovic =?UTF-8?Q?Court=C3=A8s?= Original-Sender: "Debbugs-submit" Resent-CC: guix-patches@gnu.org Resent-Date: Sat, 29 May 2021 09:31:02 +0000 Resent-Message-ID: Resent-Sender: help-debbugs@gnu.org X-GNU-PR-Message: followup 48696 X-GNU-PR-Package: guix-patches X-GNU-PR-Keywords: patch To: Julien Lepiller , Maxime Devos Cc: 48696@debbugs.gnu.org Received: via spool by 48696-submit@debbugs.gnu.org id=B48696.16222806328502 (code B ref 48696); Sat, 29 May 2021 09:31:02 +0000 Received: (at 48696) by debbugs.gnu.org; 29 May 2021 09:30:32 +0000 Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1]:56008 helo=debbugs.gnu.org) by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.84_2) (envelope-from ) id 1lmvIe-0002D4-5R for submit@debbugs.gnu.org; Sat, 29 May 2021 05:30:32 -0400 Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([209.51.188.92]:43202) by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.84_2) (envelope-from ) id 1lmvIc-0002Cp-2p for 48696@debbugs.gnu.org; Sat, 29 May 2021 05:30:31 -0400 Received: from fencepost.gnu.org ([2001:470:142:3::e]:39510) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1lmvIU-0006XX-RE; Sat, 29 May 2021 05:30:22 -0400 Received: from [2a01:e0a:1d:7270:af76:b9b:ca24:c465] (port=40030 helo=ribbon) by fencepost.gnu.org with esmtpsa (TLS1.2:ECDHE_RSA_AES_256_GCM_SHA384:256) (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1lmvIU-0002jR-IW; Sat, 29 May 2021 05:30:22 -0400 From: Ludovic =?UTF-8?Q?Court=C3=A8s?= References: <20210527123259.4115-1-ludo@gnu.org> <20210527123554.4267-1-ludo@gnu.org> <8FB0AFE9-B53B-42F7-8635-D6B4DA763FC3@lepiller.eu> X-URL: http://www.fdn.fr/~lcourtes/ X-Revolutionary-Date: 10 Prairial an 229 de la =?UTF-8?Q?R=C3=A9volution?= X-PGP-Key-ID: 0x090B11993D9AEBB5 X-PGP-Key: http://www.fdn.fr/~lcourtes/ludovic.asc X-PGP-Fingerprint: 3CE4 6455 8A84 FDC6 9DB4 0CFB 090B 1199 3D9A EBB5 X-OS: x86_64-pc-linux-gnu Date: Sat, 29 May 2021 11:30:20 +0200 In-Reply-To: <8FB0AFE9-B53B-42F7-8635-D6B4DA763FC3@lepiller.eu> (Julien Lepiller's message of "Thu, 27 May 2021 09:55:37 -0400") Message-ID: <878s3xhopf.fsf@gnu.org> User-Agent: Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13) Emacs/27.2 (gnu/linux) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable X-Spam-Score: -2.3 (--) X-BeenThere: debbugs-submit@debbugs.gnu.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.18 Precedence: list List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Errors-To: debbugs-submit-bounces@debbugs.gnu.org Sender: "Debbugs-submit" X-Spam-Score: -3.3 (---) Hi Julien & Maxime, Julien Lepiller skribis: >>+@example >>+git config commit.gpgsign true >>+git config user.signingkey CABBA6EA1DC0FF33 >>+@end example >>+ >>+You can prevent yourself from accidentally pushing unsigned commits to >>+Savannah by using the pre-push Git hook called located at >>+@file{etc/git/pre-push}: > > This sentence sounds weird. Isn't "called" superfluous? [...] >> +@example >> +git config commit.gpgsign true >> +git config user.signingkey CABBA6EA1DC0FF33 >> +@end example > > Is that meant to represent =E2=80=98cabbage and coffee=E2=80=99 in l33t? > Maybe replace this with something like > > +@example >> +git config commit.gpgsign true >> +# Substitute the fingerprint of your public PGP key >> +git config user.signingkey CABBA6EA1DC0FF33 >> +@end example > > Basic, I know, but people have to learn the basics from > somewhere, so maybe best be explicit here. Yes, that makes sense to me. Note that this text is not new, the patch merely shuffles it around. But I agree, I=E2=80=99ll address the two issues above once we=E2=80=99ve a= greed on the rest. >> + [... some newlines after @section{...} ] > > These extra newlines could go directly into 'master' I guess. > The rest of [PATCH 1/3] seems ok to me? I don=E2=80=99t know. :-) Patch #1 just moves text around and adds sectioning. BTW, the whole patch series targets =E2=80=98master=E2=80=99 (there=E2=80= =99s no point in documenting our procedures in a branch other than =E2=80=98master=E2=80=99). Thanks, Ludo=E2=80=99. From unknown Mon Jun 23 09:32:29 2025 X-Loop: help-debbugs@gnu.org Subject: [bug#48696] [PATCH 3/3] doc: Explain more reasons for commit revocation. Resent-From: Ludovic =?UTF-8?Q?Court=C3=A8s?= Original-Sender: "Debbugs-submit" Resent-CC: guix-patches@gnu.org Resent-Date: Sat, 29 May 2021 09:59:02 +0000 Resent-Message-ID: Resent-Sender: help-debbugs@gnu.org X-GNU-PR-Message: followup 48696 X-GNU-PR-Package: guix-patches X-GNU-PR-Keywords: patch To: Christopher Baines Cc: 48696@debbugs.gnu.org Received: via spool by 48696-submit@debbugs.gnu.org id=B48696.162228230310894 (code B ref 48696); Sat, 29 May 2021 09:59:02 +0000 Received: (at 48696) by debbugs.gnu.org; 29 May 2021 09:58:23 +0000 Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1]:56014 helo=debbugs.gnu.org) by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.84_2) (envelope-from ) id 1lmvjb-0002pe-Gh for submit@debbugs.gnu.org; Sat, 29 May 2021 05:58:23 -0400 Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([209.51.188.92]:47026) by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.84_2) (envelope-from ) id 1lmvjZ-0002pR-7o for 48696@debbugs.gnu.org; Sat, 29 May 2021 05:58:22 -0400 Received: from fencepost.gnu.org ([2001:470:142:3::e]:39806) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1lmvjT-0000ci-Vq; Sat, 29 May 2021 05:58:15 -0400 Received: from [2a01:e0a:1d:7270:af76:b9b:ca24:c465] (port=40148 helo=ribbon) by fencepost.gnu.org with esmtpsa (TLS1.2:ECDHE_RSA_AES_256_GCM_SHA384:256) (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1lmvjT-0004Km-MB; Sat, 29 May 2021 05:58:15 -0400 From: Ludovic =?UTF-8?Q?Court=C3=A8s?= References: <20210527123554.4267-1-ludo@gnu.org> <20210527123554.4267-3-ludo@gnu.org> <87v974ey8y.fsf@cbaines.net> X-URL: http://www.fdn.fr/~lcourtes/ X-Revolutionary-Date: 10 Prairial an 229 de la =?UTF-8?Q?R=C3=A9volution?= X-PGP-Key-ID: 0x090B11993D9AEBB5 X-PGP-Key: http://www.fdn.fr/~lcourtes/ludovic.asc X-PGP-Fingerprint: 3CE4 6455 8A84 FDC6 9DB4 0CFB 090B 1199 3D9A EBB5 X-OS: x86_64-pc-linux-gnu Date: Sat, 29 May 2021 11:58:14 +0200 In-Reply-To: <87v974ey8y.fsf@cbaines.net> (Christopher Baines's message of "Thu, 27 May 2021 21:07:57 +0100") Message-ID: <87k0nhg8uh.fsf@gnu.org> User-Agent: Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13) Emacs/27.2 (gnu/linux) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable X-Spam-Score: -2.3 (--) X-BeenThere: debbugs-submit@debbugs.gnu.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.18 Precedence: list List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Errors-To: debbugs-submit-bounces@debbugs.gnu.org Sender: "Debbugs-submit" X-Spam-Score: -3.3 (---) Christopher Baines skribis: > Ludovic Court=C3=A8s writes: [...] >> +Maintainers@footnote{See @uref{https://guix.gnu.org/en/about} for the >> +current list of maintainers. You can email them privately at >> +@email{guix-maintainers@@gnu.org}.} may also revoke an individual's >> +commit rights, as a last resort, if cooperation with the rest of the >> +community has caused too much friction---even within the bounds of the >> +project's code of conduct (@pxref{Contributing}). They would only do so >> +after public or private discussion with the individual and a clear >> +notice. Examples of behavior that hinders cooperation and could lead to >> +such a decision include: >> + >> +@itemize >> +@item repeated violation of the commit policy stated above; >> +@item repeated failure to take peer criticism into account; >> +@item breaching trust through a series of grave incidents. >> +@end itemize [...] > Since the project code of conduct sets out behavioural standards, > including mandating "Gracefully accepting constructive criticism" and > "Showing empathy towards other community members", I think that combined > with "following the relevant processes" already covers what you're > setting out here? Note that the code of conduct does not =E2=80=9Cmandate=E2=80=9D gracefully= accepting constructive criticism; it merely gives it as an example of expected behavior. > I was shocked by [1], which from memory is the first time a technical > measure has been used to push a contributor away from the project (at > least that's my interpretation of the effect/intent). I think the future > use of revoking individuals commit access would be good to discuss. > > 1: https://lists.gnu.org/archive/html/guix-devel/2021-04/msg00489.html Yes, it was the first time; it was a tough decision for us co-maintainers because it was a last resort we were not prepared for. Part of the reason for this patch is to document this possibility so we all know what to expect. > In abstract, in my opinion, I can only think of three scenarios for > removing someones commit access when they're actively using it: > > - Clear violation of the code of conduct Yes, that=E2=80=99s already covered by the code of conduct. The section above is explicitly about cases where the individual did not violate the code of conduct (hence =E2=80=9Ceven within the bounds of the project's code of conduct=E2=80=9D in the text above), but instead broke community expectations. > - Suspected malicious intent Put this way, the question becomes who is suspecting that. Instead I wrote =E2=80=9Cbreaching trust=E2=80=9D in the bullet list above; the inten= t is to describe a situation where the individual and other committers no longer trust each other, there=E2=80=99s no judgment involved. > - Process problem for giving out commit access The process for giving commit access is already documented (info "(guix) Commit Access"); my intent here was not to change it. Thanks, Ludo=E2=80=99. From unknown Mon Jun 23 09:32:29 2025 X-Loop: help-debbugs@gnu.org Subject: [bug#48696] [PATCH 2/3] doc: Add "Addressing Mistakes" section. Resent-From: Ludovic =?UTF-8?Q?Court=C3=A8s?= Original-Sender: "Debbugs-submit" Resent-CC: guix-patches@gnu.org Resent-Date: Sat, 29 May 2021 10:23:02 +0000 Resent-Message-ID: Resent-Sender: help-debbugs@gnu.org X-GNU-PR-Message: followup 48696 X-GNU-PR-Package: guix-patches X-GNU-PR-Keywords: patch To: Christopher Baines Cc: 48696@debbugs.gnu.org Received: via spool by 48696-submit@debbugs.gnu.org id=B48696.162228373813147 (code B ref 48696); Sat, 29 May 2021 10:23:02 +0000 Received: (at 48696) by debbugs.gnu.org; 29 May 2021 10:22:18 +0000 Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1]:56047 helo=debbugs.gnu.org) by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.84_2) (envelope-from ) id 1lmw6j-0003Py-LG for submit@debbugs.gnu.org; Sat, 29 May 2021 06:22:17 -0400 Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([209.51.188.92]:49846) by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.84_2) (envelope-from ) id 1lmw6h-0003Pl-JM for 48696@debbugs.gnu.org; Sat, 29 May 2021 06:22:16 -0400 Received: from fencepost.gnu.org ([2001:470:142:3::e]:40020) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1lmw6a-0007Cy-5u; Sat, 29 May 2021 06:22:09 -0400 Received: from [2a01:e0a:1d:7270:af76:b9b:ca24:c465] (port=40196 helo=ribbon) by fencepost.gnu.org with esmtpsa (TLS1.2:ECDHE_RSA_AES_256_GCM_SHA384:256) (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1lmw6Z-0006Qj-IP; Sat, 29 May 2021 06:22:08 -0400 From: Ludovic =?UTF-8?Q?Court=C3=A8s?= References: <20210527123554.4267-1-ludo@gnu.org> <20210527123554.4267-2-ludo@gnu.org> <87y2c0f0i4.fsf@cbaines.net> X-URL: http://www.fdn.fr/~lcourtes/ X-Revolutionary-Date: 10 Prairial an 229 de la =?UTF-8?Q?R=C3=A9volution?= X-PGP-Key-ID: 0x090B11993D9AEBB5 X-PGP-Key: http://www.fdn.fr/~lcourtes/ludovic.asc X-PGP-Fingerprint: 3CE4 6455 8A84 FDC6 9DB4 0CFB 090B 1199 3D9A EBB5 X-OS: x86_64-pc-linux-gnu Date: Sat, 29 May 2021 12:22:06 +0200 In-Reply-To: <87y2c0f0i4.fsf@cbaines.net> (Christopher Baines's message of "Thu, 27 May 2021 20:19:15 +0100") Message-ID: <87eedpet69.fsf@gnu.org> User-Agent: Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13) Emacs/27.2 (gnu/linux) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable X-Spam-Score: -2.3 (--) X-BeenThere: debbugs-submit@debbugs.gnu.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.18 Precedence: list List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Errors-To: debbugs-submit-bounces@debbugs.gnu.org Sender: "Debbugs-submit" X-Spam-Score: -3.3 (---) Hi Chris, Christopher Baines skribis: > Ludovic Court=C3=A8s writes: [...] >> +The Guix project values friendly cooperation and a constant effort to >> +focus on the way forward when issues arise. Committers should lead by >> +example, notably as a way to encourage contributors and contributors to >> +be. Blame as well as defensiveness do not have their place in Guix when >> +addressing genuine mistakes. > > I too would like to see less blame, but one factor is how things are > framed and the language used. Point taken! > On the language here, "mistake" is a word I would generally avoid if the > aim is avoid blaming someone, since mistakes are made by a person or set > of people. I'd prefer a term like "problem", since I don't perceieve > that as directly linked to a person or set of people. > > On the bit about the "person who pushed the faulty commits" (so, person > to blame...) I'd much prefer an emphisis on group responsibility to > mitigate the impact of problems quickly, and understand the factors that > led to that problems in the first place. That avoids assigning blame, > rather than the process pushing responsibility to the person to blame > ("person who pushed the faulty commit(s)"). I get what you say and very much like the idea of focusing on group responsibility. There=E2=80=99s blame, and there=E2=80=99s accountability. I see group res= ponsibility in setting up processes and carrying out proper peer review to avoid problems. I see accountability when it comes to commits actually pushed=E2=80=94in the end, it=E2=80=99s one person running =E2=80=98git pus= h=E2=80=99. In my view, =E2=80=9Cmistake=E2=80=9D can be a way to name a =E2=80=9Cproblem=E2=80=9D = that someone created and is accountable for (Jelle wrote a nice message on this topic a while back). This is getting a bit philosophical though, and I=E2=80=99m not sure my understanding of English is good enough to go any further. :-) I think you have a point though. Could you propose different wording for this section? (My goal for this section was to (1) spell out circumstances that may lead to reverts, (2) explain the implications of committer accountability, and (3) define our community standards in terms of focusing on addressing issues and not on blaming individuals.) > On this same thread, I'd like to see less blaming in the form of asking > people to "explain". When there's a problem, and you ask someone to > explain, I would interpret that as "I'm blaming you for this, please > give your account of how the mistake was made", to which the person can > either answer explaining the details as to why they are to blame, or can > disagree with the implicit assertion that they are to blame. To avoid > assigning blame, one can just ask someone to "describe" what happened, > which I wouldn't interpret as being loaded with the same implicit > assertion. I agree with what you write in general, though my understanding is that you=E2=80=99re not referring to the text in this patch, right? Thanks for your feedback, Ludo=E2=80=99. From unknown Mon Jun 23 09:32:29 2025 X-Loop: help-debbugs@gnu.org Subject: [bug#48696] [PATCH 3/3] doc: Explain more reasons for commit revocation. Resent-From: Christopher Baines Original-Sender: "Debbugs-submit" Resent-CC: guix-patches@gnu.org Resent-Date: Sat, 29 May 2021 11:29:02 +0000 Resent-Message-ID: Resent-Sender: help-debbugs@gnu.org X-GNU-PR-Message: followup 48696 X-GNU-PR-Package: guix-patches X-GNU-PR-Keywords: patch To: Ludovic =?UTF-8?Q?Court=C3=A8s?= Cc: 48696@debbugs.gnu.org Received: via spool by 48696-submit@debbugs.gnu.org id=B48696.162228773620638 (code B ref 48696); Sat, 29 May 2021 11:29:02 +0000 Received: (at 48696) by debbugs.gnu.org; 29 May 2021 11:28:56 +0000 Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1]:56222 helo=debbugs.gnu.org) by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.84_2) (envelope-from ) id 1lmx9E-0005Mo-CE for submit@debbugs.gnu.org; Sat, 29 May 2021 07:28:56 -0400 Received: from mira.cbaines.net ([212.71.252.8]:52724) by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.84_2) (envelope-from ) id 1lmx9C-0005Me-BQ for 48696@debbugs.gnu.org; Sat, 29 May 2021 07:28:54 -0400 Received: from localhost (unknown [IPv6:2a02:8010:68c1:0:8ac0:b4c7:f5c8:7caa]) by mira.cbaines.net (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 3F99427BC78; Sat, 29 May 2021 12:28:53 +0100 (BST) Received: from capella (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by localhost (OpenSMTPD) with ESMTP id 0d8a2f96; Sat, 29 May 2021 11:28:52 +0000 (UTC) References: <20210527123554.4267-1-ludo@gnu.org> <20210527123554.4267-3-ludo@gnu.org> <87v974ey8y.fsf@cbaines.net> <87k0nhg8uh.fsf@gnu.org> User-agent: mu4e 1.4.15; emacs 27.2 From: Christopher Baines In-reply-to: <87k0nhg8uh.fsf@gnu.org> Date: Sat, 29 May 2021 12:28:49 +0100 Message-ID: <87sg25g4ni.fsf@cbaines.net> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/signed; boundary="=-=-="; micalg=pgp-sha512; protocol="application/pgp-signature" X-Spam-Score: -0.0 (/) X-BeenThere: debbugs-submit@debbugs.gnu.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.18 Precedence: list List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Errors-To: debbugs-submit-bounces@debbugs.gnu.org Sender: "Debbugs-submit" X-Spam-Score: -1.0 (-) --=-=-= Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Ludovic Court=C3=A8s writes: > Christopher Baines skribis: > >> Ludovic Court=C3=A8s writes: > > [...] > >>> +Maintainers@footnote{See @uref{https://guix.gnu.org/en/about} for the >>> +current list of maintainers. You can email them privately at >>> +@email{guix-maintainers@@gnu.org}.} may also revoke an individual's >>> +commit rights, as a last resort, if cooperation with the rest of the >>> +community has caused too much friction---even within the bounds of the >>> +project's code of conduct (@pxref{Contributing}). They would only do = so >>> +after public or private discussion with the individual and a clear >>> +notice. Examples of behavior that hinders cooperation and could lead = to >>> +such a decision include: >>> + >>> +@itemize >>> +@item repeated violation of the commit policy stated above; >>> +@item repeated failure to take peer criticism into account; >>> +@item breaching trust through a series of grave incidents. >>> +@end itemize > > [...] > >> Since the project code of conduct sets out behavioural standards, >> including mandating "Gracefully accepting constructive criticism" and >> "Showing empathy towards other community members", I think that combined >> with "following the relevant processes" already covers what you're >> setting out here? > > Note that the code of conduct does not =E2=80=9Cmandate=E2=80=9D graceful= ly accepting > constructive criticism; it merely gives it as an example of expected > behavior. Yeah, maybe you're right. While there's a pledge regarding harassment, and the example behaviours are given in a section titled "Standards", the example behaviours are called that, examples. >> In abstract, in my opinion, I can only think of three scenarios for >> removing someones commit access when they're actively using it: >> >> - Clear violation of the code of conduct > > Yes, that=E2=80=99s already covered by the code of conduct. > > The section above is explicitly about cases where the individual did not > violate the code of conduct (hence =E2=80=9Ceven within the bounds of the > project's code of conduct=E2=80=9D in the text above), but instead broke > community expectations. I'd like to say that the code of conduct should encapsulate community expectations, but it does seem just to set out a strong position on harassment, and I would like to think that the community expectations are more than just making sure people feel that they're not being harassed. Is your intent here for "community expectations" to be/remain abstract, or for them to be explicitly set out somewhere? >> - Suspected malicious intent > > Put this way, the question becomes who is suspecting that. Instead I > wrote =E2=80=9Cbreaching trust=E2=80=9D in the bullet list above; the int= ent is to > describe a situation where the individual and other committers no longer > trust each other, there=E2=80=99s no judgment involved. I think the "who" here would be the people looking at removing someones commit access. I like this framing because it's more specific than "breaching trust through a series of grave incidents". Do you have other things in mind that this third point as you put it would cover? >> - Process problem for giving out commit access > > The process for giving commit access is already documented (info "(guix) > Commit Access"); my intent here was not to change it. My point here is just that I think it's reasonable to remove someones commit access if it was effectively given out in error (because the process wasn't followed properly, or has been since revised). --=-=-= Content-Type: application/pgp-signature; name="signature.asc" -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- iQKlBAEBCgCPFiEEPonu50WOcg2XVOCyXiijOwuE9XcFAmCyJXFfFIAAAAAALgAo aXNzdWVyLWZwckBub3RhdGlvbnMub3BlbnBncC5maWZ0aGhvcnNlbWFuLm5ldDNF ODlFRUU3NDU4RTcyMEQ5NzU0RTBCMjVFMjhBMzNCMEI4NEY1NzcRHG1haWxAY2Jh aW5lcy5uZXQACgkQXiijOwuE9XfoXw/+OQWv8R3CjNHO3tOfhbcAjttGd2+DUAGK 9t+RdLEDQRtAhDC2TYv/+1iFcmEnTzKmSo0M1ea8wg/gt687nJ8qWE/2fJUstt/B FiHk7G1Oj31uDWIADcMQ5YHvcdNz8SW9CG6YN6xHP3j2HEmE4yWUo3+VihuvOUHL KqTUQvd1lZzF6IvubnlyBmqcE5As2R2qBUgM9462F/Dy+CT6ok9Rlh/dUjVRaCnJ iqVdVBPUrp7UcG+ZqJKEgkWTcgC1eihIBfzDS0n96ozu9/Yz7XuF7kqKOuLglsaz DR78tDVwlSk26pOxwwJbxvYaq7ZRsiGzujDVAUktHvZ7FS0r28imzF7Nq5PmJTJU BnO2GVJPxZrSVgWgGBrQJKaxzrUSnmA6favoJSmlKNFJQlSWSpFOKYnRkjFViOV1 u/e0IuLDc3e63U0soaA3nBYnt/j17foN/s7bs3CbZH3QoSGYMmEHGZCw88RAqtqq exJUE7eq10Leq05EdctGtrp7PspS4JappsLh2fL0zDNrLHVk3JWKUrprSY15kV6H XWMaIhBxXCaUXVhTShLZjMoNo9ZxFOyufPugofQzx1FhiBDNPVWroRxkJ2aDHEue 67o8YYtQgeVfdIIK7NUQPx1iKQXGZtvEzF3Z1/CY8JThq6pKRTaFoSvBlQx+E+Q9 012iH8cplCk= =4pVG -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --=-=-=-- From unknown Mon Jun 23 09:32:29 2025 X-Loop: help-debbugs@gnu.org Subject: [bug#48696] [PATCH 3/3] doc: Explain more reasons for commit revocation. Resent-From: Ludovic =?UTF-8?Q?Court=C3=A8s?= Original-Sender: "Debbugs-submit" Resent-CC: guix-patches@gnu.org Resent-Date: Sat, 29 May 2021 20:37:02 +0000 Resent-Message-ID: Resent-Sender: help-debbugs@gnu.org X-GNU-PR-Message: followup 48696 X-GNU-PR-Package: guix-patches X-GNU-PR-Keywords: patch To: Christopher Baines Cc: 48696@debbugs.gnu.org Received: via spool by 48696-submit@debbugs.gnu.org id=B48696.16223206161938 (code B ref 48696); Sat, 29 May 2021 20:37:02 +0000 Received: (at 48696) by debbugs.gnu.org; 29 May 2021 20:36:56 +0000 Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1]:57774 helo=debbugs.gnu.org) by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.84_2) (envelope-from ) id 1ln5hY-0000VB-EL for submit@debbugs.gnu.org; Sat, 29 May 2021 16:36:56 -0400 Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([209.51.188.92]:59674) by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.84_2) (envelope-from ) id 1ln5hW-0000Uz-Tt for 48696@debbugs.gnu.org; Sat, 29 May 2021 16:36:55 -0400 Received: from fencepost.gnu.org ([2001:470:142:3::e]:53536) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1ln5hR-0001C8-Bf; Sat, 29 May 2021 16:36:49 -0400 Received: from [2a01:e0a:1d:7270:af76:b9b:ca24:c465] (port=41326 helo=ribbon) by fencepost.gnu.org with esmtpsa (TLS1.2:ECDHE_RSA_AES_256_GCM_SHA384:256) (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1ln5hR-0005ok-2I; Sat, 29 May 2021 16:36:49 -0400 From: Ludovic =?UTF-8?Q?Court=C3=A8s?= References: <20210527123554.4267-1-ludo@gnu.org> <20210527123554.4267-3-ludo@gnu.org> <87v974ey8y.fsf@cbaines.net> <87k0nhg8uh.fsf@gnu.org> <87sg25g4ni.fsf@cbaines.net> X-URL: http://www.fdn.fr/~lcourtes/ X-Revolutionary-Date: 10 Prairial an 229 de la =?UTF-8?Q?R=C3=A9volution?= X-PGP-Key-ID: 0x090B11993D9AEBB5 X-PGP-Key: http://www.fdn.fr/~lcourtes/ludovic.asc X-PGP-Fingerprint: 3CE4 6455 8A84 FDC6 9DB4 0CFB 090B 1199 3D9A EBB5 X-OS: x86_64-pc-linux-gnu Date: Sat, 29 May 2021 22:36:46 +0200 In-Reply-To: <87sg25g4ni.fsf@cbaines.net> (Christopher Baines's message of "Sat, 29 May 2021 12:28:49 +0100") Message-ID: <87lf7x5lb5.fsf@gnu.org> User-Agent: Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13) Emacs/27.2 (gnu/linux) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable X-Spam-Score: -1.6 (-) X-BeenThere: debbugs-submit@debbugs.gnu.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.18 Precedence: list List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Errors-To: debbugs-submit-bounces@debbugs.gnu.org Sender: "Debbugs-submit" X-Spam-Score: -2.6 (--) Hello! Christopher Baines skribis: > Ludovic Court=C3=A8s writes: [...] >> The section above is explicitly about cases where the individual did not >> violate the code of conduct (hence =E2=80=9Ceven within the bounds of the >> project's code of conduct=E2=80=9D in the text above), but instead broke >> community expectations. > > I'd like to say that the code of conduct should encapsulate community > expectations, but it does seem just to set out a strong position on > harassment, and I would like to think that the community expectations > are more than just making sure people feel that they're not being > harassed. Yes, that=E2=80=99s what the code of conduct is about, mostly. It does not= say how a development community should cooperate, how it can maximize benefits for everyone involved. I found this article by a Rust developer inspiring: . > Is your intent here for "community expectations" to be/remain abstract, > or for them to be explicitly set out somewhere? My intent with this patch is to spell out expectations for committers, with a concrete implementation. It=E2=80=99s one particular aspect of =E2=80=9Ccommunity expectations=E2=80=9D, but one that I think ought to be = written down, because committers (and maintainers) have a higher responsibility. >>> - Suspected malicious intent >> >> Put this way, the question becomes who is suspecting that. Instead I >> wrote =E2=80=9Cbreaching trust=E2=80=9D in the bullet list above; the in= tent is to >> describe a situation where the individual and other committers no longer >> trust each other, there=E2=80=99s no judgment involved. > > I think the "who" here would be the people looking at removing someones > commit access. Removing someone=E2=80=99s commit access can never be a goal. However, maintainers, like everyone else, can witness a breach of trust at some point. > I like this framing because it's more specific than "breaching trust > through a series of grave incidents". Do you have other things in mind > that this third point as you put it would cover? If repeated incidents happen, some may presume malice, while others may still see =E2=80=9Cmere mistakes=E2=80=9D=E2=80=94we have different thresho= lds. Breach of trust concerns the group as a whole: once there=E2=80=99s mutual suspicion among = some in the group, we can say that cooperation =E2=80=9Cdoesn=E2=80=99t work=E2= =80=9D anymore, that there=E2=80=99s too much friction. >>> - Process problem for giving out commit access >> >> The process for giving commit access is already documented (info "(guix) >> Commit Access"); my intent here was not to change it. > > My point here is just that I think it's reasonable to remove someones > commit access if it was effectively given out in error (because the > process wasn't followed properly, or has been since revised). Oh, got it. To me it=E2=80=99s implicit that commit access can only be obt= ained by following the documented process (that=E2=80=99s indeed be the case since it=E2=80=99s in place); do you think we should be more explicit? Thanks, Ludo=E2=80=99. From unknown Mon Jun 23 09:32:29 2025 X-Loop: help-debbugs@gnu.org Subject: [bug#48696] [PATCH 2/3] doc: Add "Addressing Mistakes" section. Resent-From: Christopher Baines Original-Sender: "Debbugs-submit" Resent-CC: guix-patches@gnu.org Resent-Date: Sun, 30 May 2021 10:31:02 +0000 Resent-Message-ID: Resent-Sender: help-debbugs@gnu.org X-GNU-PR-Message: followup 48696 X-GNU-PR-Package: guix-patches X-GNU-PR-Keywords: patch To: Ludovic =?UTF-8?Q?Court=C3=A8s?= Cc: 48696@debbugs.gnu.org Received: via spool by 48696-submit@debbugs.gnu.org id=B48696.162237060822483 (code B ref 48696); Sun, 30 May 2021 10:31:02 +0000 Received: (at 48696) by debbugs.gnu.org; 30 May 2021 10:30:08 +0000 Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1]:58443 helo=debbugs.gnu.org) by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.84_2) (envelope-from ) id 1lnIhi-0005oh-CN for submit@debbugs.gnu.org; Sun, 30 May 2021 06:30:07 -0400 Received: from mira.cbaines.net ([212.71.252.8]:54842) by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.84_2) (envelope-from ) id 1lnIhg-0005oU-0G for 48696@debbugs.gnu.org; Sun, 30 May 2021 06:29:57 -0400 Received: from localhost (unknown [IPv6:2a02:8010:68c1:0:8ac0:b4c7:f5c8:7caa]) by mira.cbaines.net (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id C09CD27BC78; Sun, 30 May 2021 11:29:54 +0100 (BST) Received: from capella (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by localhost (OpenSMTPD) with ESMTP id 34b32d13; Sun, 30 May 2021 10:29:54 +0000 (UTC) References: <20210527123554.4267-1-ludo@gnu.org> <20210527123554.4267-2-ludo@gnu.org> <87y2c0f0i4.fsf@cbaines.net> <87eedpet69.fsf@gnu.org> User-agent: mu4e 1.4.15; emacs 27.2 From: Christopher Baines In-reply-to: <87eedpet69.fsf@gnu.org> Date: Sun, 30 May 2021 11:29:51 +0100 Message-ID: <87k0ngfra8.fsf@cbaines.net> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/signed; boundary="=-=-="; micalg=pgp-sha512; protocol="application/pgp-signature" X-Spam-Score: -0.0 (/) X-BeenThere: debbugs-submit@debbugs.gnu.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.18 Precedence: list List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Errors-To: debbugs-submit-bounces@debbugs.gnu.org Sender: "Debbugs-submit" X-Spam-Score: -1.0 (-) --=-=-= Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Ludovic Court=C3=A8s writes: > Hi Chris, > > Christopher Baines skribis: > >> Ludovic Court=C3=A8s writes: > > [...] > >>> +The Guix project values friendly cooperation and a constant effort to >>> +focus on the way forward when issues arise. Committers should lead by >>> +example, notably as a way to encourage contributors and contributors to >>> +be. Blame as well as defensiveness do not have their place in Guix wh= en >>> +addressing genuine mistakes. >> >> I too would like to see less blame, but one factor is how things are >> framed and the language used. > > Point taken! > >> On the language here, "mistake" is a word I would generally avoid if the >> aim is avoid blaming someone, since mistakes are made by a person or set >> of people. I'd prefer a term like "problem", since I don't perceieve >> that as directly linked to a person or set of people. >> >> On the bit about the "person who pushed the faulty commits" (so, person >> to blame...) I'd much prefer an emphisis on group responsibility to >> mitigate the impact of problems quickly, and understand the factors that >> led to that problems in the first place. That avoids assigning blame, >> rather than the process pushing responsibility to the person to blame >> ("person who pushed the faulty commit(s)"). > > I get what you say and very much like the idea of focusing on group > responsibility. > > There=E2=80=99s blame, and there=E2=80=99s accountability. I see group r= esponsibility > in setting up processes and carrying out proper peer review to avoid > problems. I see accountability when it comes to commits actually > pushed=E2=80=94in the end, it=E2=80=99s one person running =E2=80=98git p= ush=E2=80=99. In my view, > =E2=80=9Cmistake=E2=80=9D can be a way to name a =E2=80=9Cproblem=E2=80= =9D that someone created and is > accountable for (Jelle wrote a nice message on this topic a while back). > This is getting a bit philosophical though, and I=E2=80=99m not sure my > understanding of English is good enough to go any further. :-) I guess part of what I'm getting at here is using language and the perspective to try and delay that inference about individual accountability, until the discussion around a problem has reached a clear conclusion about what happened. In doing so, opportunity is left open to actually consider the full situation, rather than immediately narrowing it down to what a particular individual or group did or didn't do. > I think you have a point though. Could you propose different wording > for this section? > > (My goal for this section was to (1) spell out circumstances that may > lead to reverts, (2) explain the implications of committer > accountability, and (3) define our community standards in terms of > focusing on addressing issues and not on blaming individuals.) What I would like to see is more like this: Problems happen, while minimising there occurrence is important, it's also important to respond to problems in a useful way. There are two priorities, mitigating the impact and understanding what happened in order to reduce the chance of similar incidents in the future. The responsibility for both these things primarily lies with those involved, but like everything this is a group effort. When working to mitigate the impact of a problem, obviously the response is very much dependent on the situation. If it's possible to fix things that are broken, that's preferable. If that's infeasible, then promptly reverting changes to return to a working state is justified (as with any commit, note why the change is being made in the commit message). Once the problem has been dealt with to some extent, then it's the responsibility of those involved to make sure the situation is understood. If you are working to understand what happened, focus on gathering information and avoid assigning any blame. Do ask those involved to describe what has happened, don't ask them to explain the situation, even if you think they have something to explain, as this implicitly blames them, which is unhelpful. Accountability comes from a consensus about the problem, learning from it and improving processes so that it's less likely to reoccur. I'm not sure how much needs saying about reverts, but I did include something. For committer accountability, that's where I'm talking about the "responsibilities of those involved". I guess that's a little vague, but what I'm trying to do there is trying to capture the group of relevant people, for example, the person who proposed the breaking change, the committer who pushed it, and the other person that reverted it. In terms of trying to focus on addressing issues and not blaming individuals, I think just avoiding language that implicitly blames people would be a big step forward. Whether that's enough, I'm unsure. >> On this same thread, I'd like to see less blaming in the form of asking >> people to "explain". When there's a problem, and you ask someone to >> explain, I would interpret that as "I'm blaming you for this, please >> give your account of how the mistake was made", to which the person can >> either answer explaining the details as to why they are to blame, or can >> disagree with the implicit assertion that they are to blame. To avoid >> assigning blame, one can just ask someone to "describe" what happened, >> which I wouldn't interpret as being loaded with the same implicit >> assertion. > > I agree with what you write in general, though my understanding is that > you=E2=80=99re not referring to the text in this patch, right? Yeah, although I think something to this effect might be worth including. --=-=-= Content-Type: application/pgp-signature; name="signature.asc" -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- iQKlBAEBCgCPFiEEPonu50WOcg2XVOCyXiijOwuE9XcFAmCzaR9fFIAAAAAALgAo aXNzdWVyLWZwckBub3RhdGlvbnMub3BlbnBncC5maWZ0aGhvcnNlbWFuLm5ldDNF ODlFRUU3NDU4RTcyMEQ5NzU0RTBCMjVFMjhBMzNCMEI4NEY1NzcRHG1haWxAY2Jh aW5lcy5uZXQACgkQXiijOwuE9XePgRAAhu0dTc80nhZdC4GoRjBSJ4ZYelF6SXcn hOaW1cALPeGzRCI1Pxw4ZYDHj+cYnvvR0GmkdlcKGjGjL19ILj4O8a0DH9gs3nd7 +94v4nT79uax+lvqUIXgark3s25m5TuRC4uNE6icQft5OoLmuzsYNq9cJPE+m4hU B0RmTbrQtCPMLySWbLweCMGjbAfQ7CQJbqORCaMGNeRPf9QsLHNUppw2cny9GW/D 64rRaYKjFJofLAhhpb9dHr1ZM40YHWVtSO+akIIeT4nNfbxoqohJypl7QHeeP7ds dBzyJ6t+08k5q4M6WJR5Frswb3SbvB9o9CGjXqxQ71Y8RGhND5X03xaXiLU2Hj95 Fq4P0LmAQP5TUxH4bzRn6Xv445FrBhR8u9NRyNXHAcRuRSQsE2Ck4YeocbWeOHkh UZvGwOOP5+PVxIyirMHSOuLPyxLQgIvvkwzVNOdSrawqb/8biFQPSEtFQjxNQD64 5In3PUPGjLkdOaI8X73TnFl/QvuVyE4eNDhhQ+9PAKsmzr6EQlSAtxoQ85VaLviC rVh0qogYwU7OdgZHFe6PfXxSQYAwH8LGaLWXJB/ZHFhfZ47MUBuBVHthXs9jfe68 MTtMTYfNeopg5XJbqs/kwUUp6ICnVyfUOm11QXFKksM3CGVs4XfzUtk8VEMPCRKU wvyuU8XcFJE= =8m4C -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --=-=-=-- From unknown Mon Jun 23 09:32:29 2025 X-Loop: help-debbugs@gnu.org Subject: [bug#48696] [PATCH 0/3] Documenting commit reverts and revocation Resent-From: Tobias Geerinckx-Rice Original-Sender: "Debbugs-submit" Resent-CC: guix-patches@gnu.org Resent-Date: Sun, 30 May 2021 12:49:01 +0000 Resent-Message-ID: Resent-Sender: help-debbugs@gnu.org X-GNU-PR-Message: followup 48696 X-GNU-PR-Package: guix-patches X-GNU-PR-Keywords: patch To: Ludovic =?UTF-8?Q?Court=C3=A8s?= Cc: 48696@debbugs.gnu.org X-Debbugs-Original-Cc: 48696@debbugs.gnu.org, guix-patches@gnu.org Received: via spool by submit@debbugs.gnu.org id=B.162237890811723 (code B ref -1); Sun, 30 May 2021 12:49:01 +0000 Received: (at submit) by debbugs.gnu.org; 30 May 2021 12:48:28 +0000 Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1]:58509 helo=debbugs.gnu.org) by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.84_2) (envelope-from ) id 1lnKrj-000330-IC for submit@debbugs.gnu.org; Sun, 30 May 2021 08:48:28 -0400 Received: from lists.gnu.org ([209.51.188.17]:33416) by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.84_2) (envelope-from ) id 1lnKrg-00032q-3V for submit@debbugs.gnu.org; Sun, 30 May 2021 08:48:26 -0400 Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([2001:470:142:3::10]:47078) by lists.gnu.org with esmtps (TLS1.2:ECDHE_RSA_AES_256_GCM_SHA384:256) (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1lnKrf-0002UI-18 for guix-patches@gnu.org; Sun, 30 May 2021 08:48:23 -0400 Received: from tobias.gr ([2a02:c205:2020:6054::1]:48040) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtps (TLS1.2:ECDHE_RSA_AES_256_GCM_SHA384:256) (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1lnKrb-0004mD-Gp; Sun, 30 May 2021 08:48:22 -0400 DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=tobias.gr; s=2018; bh=UoFBU9IV5OlUFR6zDHhmKvmN5YmVdZOxpHmXMeWveIY=; h=date:in-reply-to: subject:cc:to:from:references; b=OxdnfoznlTt7E5DWJM6cFejXwgWdK4I35S+vv VVDOv3Y6kNE/zRo5apm62QemepkAt9BCTPBtjsyM2V50GkXeOYkHi/9i4CbOHTxd3JXMAg D8XeeJGpet9dw8cRtKYwWYPiPTxCp8a2/fqVEkoAaetHOhuG5xaYMMk14bbjk6++snHR+d 2Bro0/THmfAe9dBYBDARWYuQSqT2ZP0uleVbfrNn011EpmETsILiEBJVfr2ZIswppzsT3j Q+ob48Y0I4yNpqdd0+okoTSH3h1IVSwXz3kzcuYNSZcJPM1+yAzzkXtfOZEQIGktYtD8zf oDLVuud4XVLtHCfupyDC8vH5Q== Received: by submission.tobias.gr (OpenSMTPD) with ESMTPSA id b9fc44b1 (TLSv1.2:ECDHE-ECDSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384:256:NO); Sun, 30 May 2021 12:48:12 +0000 (UTC) References: <20210527123259.4115-1-ludo@gnu.org> From: Tobias Geerinckx-Rice In-reply-to: <20210527123259.4115-1-ludo@gnu.org> BIMI-Selector: v=BIMI1; s=default; Date: Sun, 30 May 2021 14:49:00 +0200 Message-ID: <87wnrgs7yb.fsf@nckx> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/signed; boundary="=-=-="; micalg=pgp-sha512; protocol="application/pgp-signature" Received-SPF: pass client-ip=2a02:c205:2020:6054::1; envelope-from=me@tobias.gr; helo=tobias.gr X-Spam_score_int: -20 X-Spam_score: -2.1 X-Spam_bar: -- X-Spam_report: (-2.1 / 5.0 requ) BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_EF=-0.1, SPF_HELO_PASS=-0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001 autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no X-Spam_action: no action X-Spam-Score: -1.4 (-) X-BeenThere: debbugs-submit@debbugs.gnu.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.18 Precedence: list List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Errors-To: debbugs-submit-bounces@debbugs.gnu.org Sender: "Debbugs-submit" X-Spam-Score: -2.4 (--) --=-=-= Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Ludovic Court=C3=A8s =E5=86=99=E9=81=93=EF=BC=9A > It essentially codifies unwritten rules, but as always, I think=20 > it=E2=80=99s > better to be explicit about the rules and community=20 > expectations. Looks good to me modulo obvious typos like the =E2=80=98called=E2=80=99 poi= nted=20 out by Julien. I *don't* think the text assigns too much potential blame.=20 Responsibility, yes. Thanks Ludo'! T G-R --=-=-= Content-Type: application/pgp-signature; name="signature.asc" -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- iIMEARYKACsWIQT12iAyS4c9C3o4dnINsP+IT1VteQUCYLOJvA0cbWVAdG9iaWFz LmdyAAoJEA2w/4hPVW15nCEBAJCQXqDsk05JSkMY5Fred19XhZQwFpu20IHhvGNx VXIvAP9H4Rt8mIq04zTr4/q3XVnhh7Pqj1PYLu5Z1xd8aIL+DQ== =ifZ8 -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --=-=-=-- From unknown Mon Jun 23 09:32:29 2025 X-Loop: help-debbugs@gnu.org Subject: [bug#48696] [PATCH 0/3] Documenting commit reverts and revocation Resent-From: Ludovic =?UTF-8?Q?Court=C3=A8s?= Original-Sender: "Debbugs-submit" Resent-CC: guix-patches@gnu.org Resent-Date: Wed, 02 Jun 2021 09:23:01 +0000 Resent-Message-ID: Resent-Sender: help-debbugs@gnu.org X-GNU-PR-Message: followup 48696 X-GNU-PR-Package: guix-patches X-GNU-PR-Keywords: patch To: Christopher Baines Cc: 48696@debbugs.gnu.org Received: via spool by 48696-submit@debbugs.gnu.org id=B48696.162262576326456 (code B ref 48696); Wed, 02 Jun 2021 09:23:01 +0000 Received: (at 48696) by debbugs.gnu.org; 2 Jun 2021 09:22:43 +0000 Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1]:38886 helo=debbugs.gnu.org) by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.84_2) (envelope-from ) id 1loN5H-0006sc-B6 for submit@debbugs.gnu.org; Wed, 02 Jun 2021 05:22:43 -0400 Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([209.51.188.92]:35278) by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.84_2) (envelope-from ) id 1loN5F-0006sM-Iv for 48696@debbugs.gnu.org; Wed, 02 Jun 2021 05:22:42 -0400 Received: from fencepost.gnu.org ([2001:470:142:3::e]:40764) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1loN5A-0005XO-B4; Wed, 02 Jun 2021 05:22:36 -0400 Received: from [2a01:e0a:1d:7270:af76:b9b:ca24:c465] (port=58798 helo=ribbon) by fencepost.gnu.org with esmtpsa (TLS1.2:ECDHE_RSA_AES_256_GCM_SHA384:256) (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1loN5A-0004ry-2p; Wed, 02 Jun 2021 05:22:36 -0400 From: Ludovic =?UTF-8?Q?Court=C3=A8s?= References: <20210527123554.4267-1-ludo@gnu.org> <20210527123554.4267-2-ludo@gnu.org> <87y2c0f0i4.fsf@cbaines.net> <87eedpet69.fsf@gnu.org> <87k0ngfra8.fsf@cbaines.net> Date: Wed, 02 Jun 2021 11:22:34 +0200 In-Reply-To: <87k0ngfra8.fsf@cbaines.net> (Christopher Baines's message of "Sun, 30 May 2021 11:29:51 +0100") Message-ID: <87tumgwrhh.fsf_-_@gnu.org> User-Agent: Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13) Emacs/27.2 (gnu/linux) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable X-Spam-Score: -2.3 (--) X-BeenThere: debbugs-submit@debbugs.gnu.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.18 Precedence: list List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Errors-To: debbugs-submit-bounces@debbugs.gnu.org Sender: "Debbugs-submit" X-Spam-Score: -3.3 (---) Hi Chris, Christopher Baines skribis: > Ludovic Court=C3=A8s writes: [...] >> I think you have a point though. Could you propose different wording >> for this section? >> >> (My goal for this section was to (1) spell out circumstances that may >> lead to reverts, (2) explain the implications of committer >> accountability, and (3) define our community standards in terms of >> focusing on addressing issues and not on blaming individuals.) > > What I would like to see is more like this: > > Problems happen, while minimising there occurrence is important, it's > also important to respond to problems in a useful way. There are two > priorities, mitigating the impact and understanding what happened in > order to reduce the chance of similar incidents in the future. The > responsibility for both these things primarily lies with those > involved, but like everything this is a group effort. > > When working to mitigate the impact of a problem, obviously the > response is very much dependent on the situation. If it's possible to > fix things that are broken, that's preferable. If that's infeasible, > then promptly reverting changes to return to a working state is > justified (as with any commit, note why the change is being made in > the commit message). > > Once the problem has been dealt with to some extent, then it's the > responsibility of those involved to make sure the situation is > understood. If you are working to understand what happened, focus on > gathering information and avoid assigning any blame. Do ask those > involved to describe what has happened, don't ask them to explain the > situation, even if you think they have something to explain, as this > implicitly blames them, which is unhelpful. Accountability comes from > a consensus about the problem, learning from it and improving > processes so that it's less likely to reoccur. > > I'm not sure how much needs saying about reverts, but I did include > something. > > For committer accountability, that's where I'm talking about the > "responsibilities of those involved". I guess that's a little vague, but > what I'm trying to do there is trying to capture the group of relevant > people, for example, the person who proposed the breaking change, the > committer who pushed it, and the other person that reverted it. > > In terms of trying to focus on addressing issues and not blaming > individuals, I think just avoiding language that implicitly blames > people would be a big step forward. Whether that's enough, I'm unsure. OK. I like what you wrote; I think it addresses #3 and a bit of #2 above, but I find a bit too abstract, not sufficiently hands-on (when can commits be reverted? what=E2=80=99s the timeframe? who=E2=80=99s involved?)= , and lacking examples. =E2=80=9CProblems happen=E2=80=9D sounds unspecific to me (it re= minds me of Forest Gump :-)) and I=E2=80=99m uncomfortable with the passive voice that = tends to erase individuals. @subsection Addressing Issues =20=20 Peer review (@pxref{Submitting Patches}) and tools such as @command{guix lint} (@pxref{Invoking guix lint}) and the test suite (@pxref{Running the Test Suite}) should catch issues before they are pushed. Yet, commits that ``break'' functionality might occasionally go through. When that happens, there are two priorities: mitigating the impact, and understanding what happened to reduce the chance of similar incidents in the future. The responsibility for both these things primarily lies with those involved, but like everything this is a group effort. =20=20 Some issues can directly affect all users---for instance because they make @command{guix pull} fail or break core functionality, because they break major packages (at build time or run time), or because they introduce known security vulnerabilities. =20=20 @cindex reverting commits The people involved in authoring, reviewing, and pushing such commit(s) should be at the forefront to mitigate their impact in a timely fashion: by pushing a followup commit to fix it (if possible), or by reverting it to leave time to come up with a proper fix, and by communicating with other developers about the problem. =20=20 If these persons are unavailable to address the issue in time, other committers are entitled to revert the commit(s), explaining in the commit log and on the mailing list what the problem was, with the goal of leaving time to the original committer, reviewer(s), and author(s) to propose a way forward. =20=20 Once the problem has been dealt with, it is the responsibility of those involved to make sure the situation is understood. If you are working to understand what happened, focus on gathering information and avoid assigning any blame. Do ask those involved to describe what happened, do not ask them to explain the situation---this would implicitly blame them, which is unhelpful. Accountability comes from a consensus about the problem, learning from it and improving processes so that it's less likely to reoccur. There=E2=80=99s still =E2=80=9Cthe people involved=E2=80=9D, =E2=80=9Cthese= persons=E2=80=9D, and =E2=80=9Csuch commits=E2=80=9D (I removed =E2=80=9Cfaulty=E2=80=9D), because I couldn=E2=80=99t think of a= way of avoiding these without making the text too abstract or dismissing the idea entirely (the idea that if I push a breaking change, others can expect me to be spend time =E2=80=9Cmitigating the effort=E2=80=9D). Also, I think it=E2=80=99s useful to distinguish between =E2=80=9CI revert = my commit=E2=80=9D and =E2=80=9Csomeone reverts my commit=E2=80=9D due to their different soci= al and emotional implications (our goal is precisely to suggest that these implications are out of place in this group effort that Guix is, but we can=E2=80=99t deny that they preexist). WDYT? Thanks for taking the time to work on it! Ludo=E2=80=99. From unknown Mon Jun 23 09:32:29 2025 X-Loop: help-debbugs@gnu.org Subject: [bug#48696] [PATCH 0/3] Documenting commit reverts and revocation Resent-From: Christopher Baines Original-Sender: "Debbugs-submit" Resent-CC: guix-patches@gnu.org Resent-Date: Tue, 08 Jun 2021 14:03:01 +0000 Resent-Message-ID: Resent-Sender: help-debbugs@gnu.org X-GNU-PR-Message: followup 48696 X-GNU-PR-Package: guix-patches X-GNU-PR-Keywords: patch To: Ludovic =?UTF-8?Q?Court=C3=A8s?= Cc: 48696@debbugs.gnu.org Received: via spool by 48696-submit@debbugs.gnu.org id=B48696.162316095832313 (code B ref 48696); Tue, 08 Jun 2021 14:03:01 +0000 Received: (at 48696) by debbugs.gnu.org; 8 Jun 2021 14:02:38 +0000 Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1]:59396 helo=debbugs.gnu.org) by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.84_2) (envelope-from ) id 1lqcJR-0008P7-Lj for submit@debbugs.gnu.org; Tue, 08 Jun 2021 10:02:38 -0400 Received: from mira.cbaines.net ([212.71.252.8]:38432) by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.84_2) (envelope-from ) id 1lqcJQ-0008Oy-1w for 48696@debbugs.gnu.org; Tue, 08 Jun 2021 10:02:36 -0400 Received: from localhost (unknown [IPv6:2a02:8010:68c1:0:8ac0:b4c7:f5c8:7caa]) by mira.cbaines.net (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id E6CD027BC78; Tue, 8 Jun 2021 15:02:34 +0100 (BST) Received: from capella (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by localhost (OpenSMTPD) with ESMTP id d4ba3c70; Tue, 8 Jun 2021 14:02:34 +0000 (UTC) References: <20210527123554.4267-1-ludo@gnu.org> <20210527123554.4267-2-ludo@gnu.org> <87y2c0f0i4.fsf@cbaines.net> <87eedpet69.fsf@gnu.org> <87k0ngfra8.fsf@cbaines.net> <87tumgwrhh.fsf_-_@gnu.org> User-agent: mu4e 1.4.15; emacs 27.2 From: Christopher Baines In-reply-to: <87tumgwrhh.fsf_-_@gnu.org> Date: Tue, 08 Jun 2021 15:02:31 +0100 Message-ID: <87bl8gtpxk.fsf@cbaines.net> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/signed; boundary="=-=-="; micalg=pgp-sha512; protocol="application/pgp-signature" X-Spam-Score: -0.0 (/) X-BeenThere: debbugs-submit@debbugs.gnu.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.18 Precedence: list List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Errors-To: debbugs-submit-bounces@debbugs.gnu.org Sender: "Debbugs-submit" X-Spam-Score: -1.0 (-) --=-=-= Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Ludovic Court=C3=A8s writes: > Hi Chris, > > Christopher Baines skribis: > >> Ludovic Court=C3=A8s writes: > > [...] > >>> I think you have a point though. Could you propose different wording >>> for this section? >>> >>> (My goal for this section was to (1) spell out circumstances that may >>> lead to reverts, (2) explain the implications of committer >>> accountability, and (3) define our community standards in terms of >>> focusing on addressing issues and not on blaming individuals.) >> >> What I would like to see is more like this: >> >> Problems happen, while minimising there occurrence is important, it's >> also important to respond to problems in a useful way. There are two >> priorities, mitigating the impact and understanding what happened in >> order to reduce the chance of similar incidents in the future. The >> responsibility for both these things primarily lies with those >> involved, but like everything this is a group effort. >> >> When working to mitigate the impact of a problem, obviously the >> response is very much dependent on the situation. If it's possible to >> fix things that are broken, that's preferable. If that's infeasible, >> then promptly reverting changes to return to a working state is >> justified (as with any commit, note why the change is being made in >> the commit message). >> >> Once the problem has been dealt with to some extent, then it's the >> responsibility of those involved to make sure the situation is >> understood. If you are working to understand what happened, focus on >> gathering information and avoid assigning any blame. Do ask those >> involved to describe what has happened, don't ask them to explain the >> situation, even if you think they have something to explain, as this >> implicitly blames them, which is unhelpful. Accountability comes from >> a consensus about the problem, learning from it and improving >> processes so that it's less likely to reoccur. >> >> I'm not sure how much needs saying about reverts, but I did include >> something. >> >> For committer accountability, that's where I'm talking about the >> "responsibilities of those involved". I guess that's a little vague, but >> what I'm trying to do there is trying to capture the group of relevant >> people, for example, the person who proposed the breaking change, the >> committer who pushed it, and the other person that reverted it. >> >> In terms of trying to focus on addressing issues and not blaming >> individuals, I think just avoiding language that implicitly blames >> people would be a big step forward. Whether that's enough, I'm unsure. > > OK. > > I like what you wrote; I think it addresses #3 and a bit of #2 above, > but I find a bit too abstract, not sufficiently hands-on (when can > commits be reverted? what=E2=80=99s the timeframe? who=E2=80=99s involved= ?), and lacking > examples. =E2=80=9CProblems happen=E2=80=9D sounds unspecific to me (it = reminds me of > Forest Gump :-)) and I=E2=80=99m uncomfortable with the passive voice tha= t tends > to erase individuals. > > @subsection Addressing Issues > > Peer review (@pxref{Submitting Patches}) and tools such as > @command{guix lint} (@pxref{Invoking guix lint}) and the test suite > (@pxref{Running the Test Suite}) should catch issues before they are > pushed. Yet, commits that ``break'' functionality might occasionally > go through. When that happens, there are two priorities: mitigating > the impact, and understanding what happened to reduce the chance of > similar incidents in the future. The responsibility for both these > things primarily lies with those involved, but like everything this is > a group effort. >=20=20=20 > Some issues can directly affect all users---for instance because they > make @command{guix pull} fail or break core functionality, because they > break major packages (at build time or run time), or because they > introduce known security vulnerabilities. I'm not sure what this paragraph is getting at? In any case, for security vulnerabilities, to affect all users they would also have to occur in major packages. > @cindex reverting commits > The people involved in authoring, reviewing, and pushing such > commit(s) should be at the forefront to mitigate their impact in a > timely fashion: by pushing a followup commit to fix it (if possible), > or by reverting it to leave time to come up with a proper fix, and by > communicating with other developers about the problem. >=20=20=20 > If these persons are unavailable to address the issue in time, other > committers are entitled to revert the commit(s), explaining in the > commit log and on the mailing list what the problem was, with the goal > of leaving time to the original committer, reviewer(s), and author(s) > to propose a way forward. >=20=20=20 > Once the problem has been dealt with, it is the responsibility of > those involved to make sure the situation is understood. If you are > working to understand what happened, focus on gathering information > and avoid assigning any blame. Do ask those involved to describe what > happened, do not ask them to explain the situation---this would > implicitly blame them, which is unhelpful. Accountability comes from > a consensus about the problem, learning from it and improving > processes so that it's less likely to reoccur. > > There=E2=80=99s still =E2=80=9Cthe people involved=E2=80=9D, =E2=80=9Cthe= se persons=E2=80=9D, and =E2=80=9Csuch commits=E2=80=9D > (I removed =E2=80=9Cfaulty=E2=80=9D), because I couldn=E2=80=99t think of= a way of avoiding > these without making the text too abstract or dismissing the idea > entirely (the idea that if I push a breaking change, others can expect > me to be spend time =E2=80=9Cmitigating the effort=E2=80=9D). > > Also, I think it=E2=80=99s useful to distinguish between =E2=80=9CI rever= t my commit=E2=80=9D > and =E2=80=9Csomeone reverts my commit=E2=80=9D due to their different so= cial and > emotional implications (our goal is precisely to suggest that these > implications are out of place in this group effort that Guix is, but we > can=E2=80=99t deny that they preexist). > > WDYT? I think the above text looks good. As noted above, I'm unsure about the second paragraph, but that's not a big issue. --=-=-= Content-Type: application/pgp-signature; name="signature.asc" -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- iQKlBAEBCgCPFiEEPonu50WOcg2XVOCyXiijOwuE9XcFAmC/eHdfFIAAAAAALgAo aXNzdWVyLWZwckBub3RhdGlvbnMub3BlbnBncC5maWZ0aGhvcnNlbWFuLm5ldDNF ODlFRUU3NDU4RTcyMEQ5NzU0RTBCMjVFMjhBMzNCMEI4NEY1NzcRHG1haWxAY2Jh aW5lcy5uZXQACgkQXiijOwuE9XfDTA/8DCO0CBrXvyvu5JlgJqJIzeoH9Wf5gv5N PRMaF4uCbcLE5DiFg9RYgy1UpYedqbSXx1Cfr6mmJw/t5ObaIBrOsnqAO9FF1+2T j91A9x9nTY/kkP0Cq0r96JNIX7l/ht3REeEYwUrtS4Gw0lE8zK6PZck8LPNGDopu hHfM8P/BxpREpAhvPhTsb2VSv8z8HC1qGhW587DRGbW9WlNr/qADVMqOhpvu4K3g 5Be8J+wbv5E4DrkV9d5tSN0SSMCg0MsaixoO44iQqilSTNhkRic2BEV1YGRq9JyZ 1RocMBpTPBYnOjiK/vSySoSDkk8aSEnb2mL6HosXXYfFyYvhbeXHJw8LFkcr/wor ayJ55WFzKVO6CPSX9v7WgVtl6Aupl0sOxlLLq3gR6jHDeuZNWGjpAX/BBMeeijiJ VyRr7zVRDC85RyXxJokVSlXECbqO3xuOyJbTZP7yvc4sSO3gffHyMQQ/6GUX0cKK CGjdyTBCqpF4d9dWULtV1n87h8OcUrzkszCbPXjjZ+eQTQjkytiUPiGSAoz/EDs5 0hqjDCo1qpcfIMUOkEjolv8U0CfMjU4lZ83V6MGiRPCfCFzezh+ZSqHEp8qk/RG0 qamW4+XnEOFMrH4VB78i2C/sbnWlxyyRif8I9NMwNH7WDWl6i4Svb/Lr9rO5zVSr znXKZm6Jzzo= =YZ9K -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --=-=-=-- From unknown Mon Jun 23 09:32:29 2025 X-Loop: help-debbugs@gnu.org Subject: [bug#48696] [PATCH 0/3] Documenting commit reverts and revocation Resent-From: Ludovic =?UTF-8?Q?Court=C3=A8s?= Original-Sender: "Debbugs-submit" Resent-CC: guix-patches@gnu.org Resent-Date: Fri, 11 Jun 2021 14:06:02 +0000 Resent-Message-ID: Resent-Sender: help-debbugs@gnu.org X-GNU-PR-Message: followup 48696 X-GNU-PR-Package: guix-patches X-GNU-PR-Keywords: patch To: Christopher Baines Cc: 48696@debbugs.gnu.org Received: via spool by 48696-submit@debbugs.gnu.org id=B48696.162342032329431 (code B ref 48696); Fri, 11 Jun 2021 14:06:02 +0000 Received: (at 48696) by debbugs.gnu.org; 11 Jun 2021 14:05:23 +0000 Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1]:39765 helo=debbugs.gnu.org) by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.84_2) (envelope-from ) id 1lrhmk-0007ec-SW for submit@debbugs.gnu.org; Fri, 11 Jun 2021 10:05:23 -0400 Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([209.51.188.92]:33910) by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.84_2) (envelope-from ) id 1lrhmi-0007eP-WB for 48696@debbugs.gnu.org; Fri, 11 Jun 2021 10:05:21 -0400 Received: from fencepost.gnu.org ([2001:470:142:3::e]:57078) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1lrhmd-0007Xn-CU; Fri, 11 Jun 2021 10:05:15 -0400 Received: from [2a01:e0a:1d:7270:af76:b9b:ca24:c465] (port=49316 helo=ribbon) by fencepost.gnu.org with esmtpsa (TLS1.2:ECDHE_RSA_AES_256_GCM_SHA384:256) (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1lrhmW-00063M-3F; Fri, 11 Jun 2021 10:05:15 -0400 From: Ludovic =?UTF-8?Q?Court=C3=A8s?= References: <20210527123554.4267-1-ludo@gnu.org> <20210527123554.4267-2-ludo@gnu.org> <87y2c0f0i4.fsf@cbaines.net> <87eedpet69.fsf@gnu.org> <87k0ngfra8.fsf@cbaines.net> <87tumgwrhh.fsf_-_@gnu.org> <87bl8gtpxk.fsf@cbaines.net> X-URL: http://www.fdn.fr/~lcourtes/ X-Revolutionary-Date: 23 Prairial an 229 de la =?UTF-8?Q?R=C3=A9volution?= X-PGP-Key-ID: 0x090B11993D9AEBB5 X-PGP-Key: http://www.fdn.fr/~lcourtes/ludovic.asc X-PGP-Fingerprint: 3CE4 6455 8A84 FDC6 9DB4 0CFB 090B 1199 3D9A EBB5 X-OS: x86_64-pc-linux-gnu Date: Fri, 11 Jun 2021 16:05:06 +0200 In-Reply-To: <87bl8gtpxk.fsf@cbaines.net> (Christopher Baines's message of "Tue, 08 Jun 2021 15:02:31 +0100") Message-ID: <87lf7g7azx.fsf@gnu.org> User-Agent: Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13) Emacs/27.2 (gnu/linux) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable X-Spam-Score: -2.3 (--) X-BeenThere: debbugs-submit@debbugs.gnu.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.18 Precedence: list List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Errors-To: debbugs-submit-bounces@debbugs.gnu.org Sender: "Debbugs-submit" X-Spam-Score: -3.3 (---) Hi Chris, Christopher Baines skribis: > Ludovic Court=C3=A8s writes: [...] >> @subsection Addressing Issues >> >> Peer review (@pxref{Submitting Patches}) and tools such as >> @command{guix lint} (@pxref{Invoking guix lint}) and the test suite >> (@pxref{Running the Test Suite}) should catch issues before they are >> pushed. Yet, commits that ``break'' functionality might occasionally >> go through. When that happens, there are two priorities: mitigating >> the impact, and understanding what happened to reduce the chance of >> similar incidents in the future. The responsibility for both these >> things primarily lies with those involved, but like everything this is >> a group effort. >>=20=20=20 >> Some issues can directly affect all users---for instance because they >> make @command{guix pull} fail or break core functionality, because they >> break major packages (at build time or run time), or because they >> introduce known security vulnerabilities. > > I'm not sure what this paragraph is getting at? It=E2=80=99s supposed to be provide concrete guidance to a committer wonder= ing whether they can/should/are entitled to revert a given commit. > In any case, for security vulnerabilities, to affect all users they > would also have to occur in major packages. Agreed. The word =E2=80=9Cknown=E2=80=9D is important here: if I remove *-= CVE-*.patch, or if I downgrade a package, I=E2=80=99m likely introducing a =E2=80=9Cknow= n=E2=80=9D vulnerability; if I=E2=80=99m adding a new package that later happens to be vulnerable, it=E2=80=99s not a =E2=80=9Cknown=E2=80=9D vulnerability (it=E2= =80=99s just routine ;-)). > I think the above text looks good. As noted above, I'm unsure about the > second paragraph, but that's not a big issue. OK, thanks for taking the time to discuss it. I=E2=80=99ll send a v2 so everyone gets a chance to chime in. Ludo=E2=80=99. From unknown Mon Jun 23 09:32:29 2025 X-Loop: help-debbugs@gnu.org Subject: [bug#48696] [PATCH v2 0/4] Documenting commit reverts and revocation Resent-From: Ludovic =?UTF-8?Q?Court=C3=A8s?= Original-Sender: "Debbugs-submit" Resent-CC: guix-patches@gnu.org Resent-Date: Sun, 13 Jun 2021 10:16:01 +0000 Resent-Message-ID: Resent-Sender: help-debbugs@gnu.org X-GNU-PR-Message: followup 48696 X-GNU-PR-Package: guix-patches X-GNU-PR-Keywords: patch To: 48696@debbugs.gnu.org Cc: Ludovic =?UTF-8?Q?Court=C3=A8s?= Received: via spool by 48696-submit@debbugs.gnu.org id=B48696.16235793539923 (code B ref 48696); Sun, 13 Jun 2021 10:16:01 +0000 Received: (at 48696) by debbugs.gnu.org; 13 Jun 2021 10:15:53 +0000 Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1]:42686 helo=debbugs.gnu.org) by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.84_2) (envelope-from ) id 1lsN9l-0002Zg-De for submit@debbugs.gnu.org; Sun, 13 Jun 2021 06:15:53 -0400 Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([209.51.188.92]:41844) by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.84_2) (envelope-from ) id 1lsN9i-0002RZ-CY for 48696@debbugs.gnu.org; Sun, 13 Jun 2021 06:15:51 -0400 Received: from fencepost.gnu.org ([2001:470:142:3::e]:38708) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1lsN9c-0001uO-Bj; Sun, 13 Jun 2021 06:15:44 -0400 Received: from [2a01:e0a:1d:7270:af76:b9b:ca24:c465] (port=55286 helo=gnu.org) by fencepost.gnu.org with esmtpsa (TLS1.2:ECDHE_RSA_AES_128_GCM_SHA256:128) (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1lsN9b-0002w0-SN; Sun, 13 Jun 2021 06:15:44 -0400 From: Ludovic =?UTF-8?Q?Court=C3=A8s?= Date: Sun, 13 Jun 2021 12:15:34 +0200 Message-Id: <20210613101538.10668-1-ludo@gnu.org> X-Mailer: git-send-email 2.32.0 In-Reply-To: <87lf7g7azx.fsf@gnu.org> References: <87lf7g7azx.fsf@gnu.org> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-Spam-Score: -2.3 (--) X-BeenThere: debbugs-submit@debbugs.gnu.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.18 Precedence: list List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Errors-To: debbugs-submit-bounces@debbugs.gnu.org Sender: "Debbugs-submit" X-Spam-Score: -3.3 (---) Hi! Changes since the initial version: 1. “Addressing Mistakes” section replaced by “Addressing Issues” following suggestions by Chris Baines at . 2. Fix typo and clarify Git commit signing instructions as reported by Julien and Maxime (these were in pre-existing text). If there are no objections, I’d like to push within a couple of days. Thanks, Ludo’. Ludovic Courtès (4): doc: Structure the "Commit Access" section. doc: Add "Addressing Issues" section. doc: Explain more reasons for commit revocation. doc: Clarify Git commit signing; fix typo. doc/contributing.texi | 121 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++-------- 1 file changed, 100 insertions(+), 21 deletions(-) -- 2.32.0 From unknown Mon Jun 23 09:32:29 2025 X-Loop: help-debbugs@gnu.org Subject: [bug#48696] [PATCH v2 1/4] doc: Structure the "Commit Access" section. Resent-From: Ludovic =?UTF-8?Q?Court=C3=A8s?= Original-Sender: "Debbugs-submit" Resent-CC: guix-patches@gnu.org Resent-Date: Sun, 13 Jun 2021 10:16:02 +0000 Resent-Message-ID: Resent-Sender: help-debbugs@gnu.org X-GNU-PR-Message: followup 48696 X-GNU-PR-Package: guix-patches X-GNU-PR-Keywords: patch To: 48696@debbugs.gnu.org Cc: Ludovic =?UTF-8?Q?Court=C3=A8s?= Received: via spool by 48696-submit@debbugs.gnu.org id=B48696.16235793549959 (code B ref 48696); Sun, 13 Jun 2021 10:16:02 +0000 Received: (at 48696) by debbugs.gnu.org; 13 Jun 2021 10:15:54 +0000 Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1]:42688 helo=debbugs.gnu.org) by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.84_2) (envelope-from ) id 1lsN9l-0002Zy-Mr for submit@debbugs.gnu.org; Sun, 13 Jun 2021 06:15:54 -0400 Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([209.51.188.92]:41848) by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.84_2) (envelope-from ) id 1lsN9i-0002Ri-FI for 48696@debbugs.gnu.org; Sun, 13 Jun 2021 06:15:51 -0400 Received: from fencepost.gnu.org ([2001:470:142:3::e]:38710) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1lsN9c-0001um-UI; Sun, 13 Jun 2021 06:15:44 -0400 Received: from [2a01:e0a:1d:7270:af76:b9b:ca24:c465] (port=55286 helo=gnu.org) by fencepost.gnu.org with esmtpsa (TLS1.2:ECDHE_RSA_AES_128_GCM_SHA256:128) (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1lsN9c-0002w0-Mj; Sun, 13 Jun 2021 06:15:44 -0400 From: Ludovic =?UTF-8?Q?Court=C3=A8s?= Date: Sun, 13 Jun 2021 12:15:35 +0200 Message-Id: <20210613101538.10668-2-ludo@gnu.org> X-Mailer: git-send-email 2.32.0 In-Reply-To: <20210613101538.10668-1-ludo@gnu.org> References: <87lf7g7azx.fsf@gnu.org> <20210613101538.10668-1-ludo@gnu.org> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-Spam-Score: -2.3 (--) X-BeenThere: debbugs-submit@debbugs.gnu.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.18 Precedence: list List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Errors-To: debbugs-submit-bounces@debbugs.gnu.org Sender: "Debbugs-submit" X-Spam-Score: -3.3 (---) * doc/contributing.texi (Commit Access): Add introduction and section heading. Separate OpenPGP setup from commit policy. --- doc/contributing.texi | 59 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++--------------- 1 file changed, 38 insertions(+), 21 deletions(-) diff --git a/doc/contributing.texi b/doc/contributing.texi index d67e632520..4ab489173b 100644 --- a/doc/contributing.texi +++ b/doc/contributing.texi @@ -1275,8 +1275,19 @@ this nifty tool! @section Commit Access @cindex commit access, for developers -For frequent contributors, having write access to the repository is -convenient. When you deem it necessary, consider applying for commit +Everyone can contribute to Guix without having commit access +(@pxref{Submitting Patches}). However, for frequent contributors, +having write access to the repository can be convenient. Commit access +should not be thought of as a ``badge of honor'' but rather as a +responsibility a contributor is willing to take to help the project. + +The following sections explain how to get commit access, how to be ready +to push commits, and the policies and community expectations for commits +pushed upstream. + +@subsection Applying for Commit Access + +When you deem it necessary, consider applying for commit access by following these steps: @enumerate @@ -1348,6 +1359,27 @@ review and merging system, which, as a consequence, may lead us to have fewer people with commit access to the main repository. Stay tuned! @end quotation +All commits that are pushed to the central repository on Savannah must +be signed with an OpenPGP key, and the public key should be uploaded to +your user account on Savannah and to public key servers, such as +@code{keys.openpgp.org}. To configure Git to automatically sign +commits, run: + +@example +git config commit.gpgsign true +git config user.signingkey CABBA6EA1DC0FF33 +@end example + +You can prevent yourself from accidentally pushing unsigned commits to +Savannah by using the pre-push Git hook called located at +@file{etc/git/pre-push}: + +@example +cp etc/git/pre-push .git/hooks/pre-push +@end example + +@subsection Commit Policy + If you get commit access, please make sure to follow the policy below (discussions of the policy can take place on @email{guix-devel@@gnu.org}). @@ -1366,25 +1398,6 @@ mailing list for commit notifications (@email{guix-commits@@gnu.org}), so people can notice. Before pushing your changes, make sure to run @code{git pull --rebase}. -All commits that are pushed to the central repository on Savannah must -be signed with an OpenPGP key, and the public key should be uploaded to -your user account on Savannah and to public key servers, such as -@code{keys.openpgp.org}. To configure Git to automatically sign -commits, run: - -@example -git config commit.gpgsign true -git config user.signingkey CABBA6EA1DC0FF33 -@end example - -You can prevent yourself from accidentally pushing unsigned commits to -Savannah by using the pre-push Git hook called located at -@file{etc/git/pre-push}: - -@example -cp etc/git/pre-push .git/hooks/pre-push -@end example - When pushing a commit on behalf of somebody else, please add a @code{Signed-off-by} line at the end of the commit log message---e.g., with @command{git am --signoff}. This improves tracking of who did @@ -1406,12 +1419,16 @@ you're confident, it's OK to commit. That last part is subject to being adjusted, allowing individuals to commit directly on non-controversial changes on parts they’re familiar with. +@subsection Commit Revocation + In order to reduce the possibility of mistakes, committers will have their Savannah account removed from the Guix Savannah project and their key removed from @file{.guix-authorizations} after 12 months of inactivity; they can ask to regain commit access by emailing the maintainers, without going through the vouching process. +@subsection Helping Out + One last thing: the project keeps moving forward because committers not only push their own awesome changes, but also offer some of their time @emph{reviewing} and pushing other people's changes. As a committer, -- 2.32.0 From unknown Mon Jun 23 09:32:29 2025 X-Loop: help-debbugs@gnu.org Subject: [bug#48696] [PATCH v2 3/4] doc: Explain more reasons for commit revocation. Resent-From: Ludovic =?UTF-8?Q?Court=C3=A8s?= Original-Sender: "Debbugs-submit" Resent-CC: guix-patches@gnu.org Resent-Date: Sun, 13 Jun 2021 10:16:02 +0000 Resent-Message-ID: Resent-Sender: help-debbugs@gnu.org X-GNU-PR-Message: followup 48696 X-GNU-PR-Package: guix-patches X-GNU-PR-Keywords: patch To: 48696@debbugs.gnu.org Cc: Ludovic =?UTF-8?Q?Court=C3=A8s?= Received: via spool by 48696-submit@debbugs.gnu.org id=B48696.162357935510008 (code B ref 48696); Sun, 13 Jun 2021 10:16:02 +0000 Received: (at 48696) by debbugs.gnu.org; 13 Jun 2021 10:15:55 +0000 Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1]:42692 helo=debbugs.gnu.org) by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.84_2) (envelope-from ) id 1lsN9m-0002b2-VX for submit@debbugs.gnu.org; Sun, 13 Jun 2021 06:15:55 -0400 Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([209.51.188.92]:41860) by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.84_2) (envelope-from ) id 1lsN9j-0002Sc-8b for 48696@debbugs.gnu.org; Sun, 13 Jun 2021 06:15:52 -0400 Received: from fencepost.gnu.org ([2001:470:142:3::e]:38714) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1lsN9e-0001vt-2j; Sun, 13 Jun 2021 06:15:46 -0400 Received: from [2a01:e0a:1d:7270:af76:b9b:ca24:c465] (port=55286 helo=gnu.org) by fencepost.gnu.org with esmtpsa (TLS1.2:ECDHE_RSA_AES_128_GCM_SHA256:128) (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1lsN9d-0002w0-RX; Sun, 13 Jun 2021 06:15:46 -0400 From: Ludovic =?UTF-8?Q?Court=C3=A8s?= Date: Sun, 13 Jun 2021 12:15:37 +0200 Message-Id: <20210613101538.10668-4-ludo@gnu.org> X-Mailer: git-send-email 2.32.0 In-Reply-To: <20210613101538.10668-1-ludo@gnu.org> References: <87lf7g7azx.fsf@gnu.org> <20210613101538.10668-1-ludo@gnu.org> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-Spam-Score: -2.3 (--) X-BeenThere: debbugs-submit@debbugs.gnu.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.18 Precedence: list List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Errors-To: debbugs-submit-bounces@debbugs.gnu.org Sender: "Debbugs-submit" X-Spam-Score: -3.3 (---) * doc/contributing.texi (Commit Revocation): Expound. --- doc/contributing.texi | 21 +++++++++++++++++++++ 1 file changed, 21 insertions(+) diff --git a/doc/contributing.texi b/doc/contributing.texi index 00962be11e..5e59278534 100644 --- a/doc/contributing.texi +++ b/doc/contributing.texi @@ -1466,6 +1466,27 @@ key removed from @file{.guix-authorizations} after 12 months of inactivity; they can ask to regain commit access by emailing the maintainers, without going through the vouching process. +Maintainers@footnote{See @uref{https://guix.gnu.org/en/about} for the +current list of maintainers. You can email them privately at +@email{guix-maintainers@@gnu.org}.} may also revoke an individual's +commit rights, as a last resort, if cooperation with the rest of the +community has caused too much friction---even within the bounds of the +project's code of conduct (@pxref{Contributing}). They would only do so +after public or private discussion with the individual and a clear +notice. Examples of behavior that hinders cooperation and could lead to +such a decision include: + +@itemize +@item repeated violation of the commit policy stated above; +@item repeated failure to take peer criticism into account; +@item breaching trust through a series of grave incidents. +@end itemize + +When maintainers resort to such a decision, they notify developers on +@email{guix-devel@@gnu.org}; inquiries may be sent to +@email{guix-maintainers@@gnu.org}. Depending on the situation, the +individual may still be welcome to contribute. + @subsection Helping Out One last thing: the project keeps moving forward because committers not -- 2.32.0 From unknown Mon Jun 23 09:32:29 2025 X-Loop: help-debbugs@gnu.org Subject: [bug#48696] [PATCH v2 4/4] doc: Clarify Git commit signing; fix typo. Resent-From: Ludovic =?UTF-8?Q?Court=C3=A8s?= Original-Sender: "Debbugs-submit" Resent-CC: guix-patches@gnu.org Resent-Date: Sun, 13 Jun 2021 10:16:03 +0000 Resent-Message-ID: Resent-Sender: help-debbugs@gnu.org X-GNU-PR-Message: followup 48696 X-GNU-PR-Package: guix-patches X-GNU-PR-Keywords: patch To: 48696@debbugs.gnu.org Cc: Ludovic =?UTF-8?Q?Court=C3=A8s?= Received: via spool by 48696-submit@debbugs.gnu.org id=B48696.162357935510033 (code B ref 48696); Sun, 13 Jun 2021 10:16:03 +0000 Received: (at 48696) by debbugs.gnu.org; 13 Jun 2021 10:15:55 +0000 Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1]:42694 helo=debbugs.gnu.org) by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.84_2) (envelope-from ) id 1lsN9n-0002bM-BV for submit@debbugs.gnu.org; Sun, 13 Jun 2021 06:15:55 -0400 Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([209.51.188.92]:41866) by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.84_2) (envelope-from ) id 1lsN9j-0002TK-PX for 48696@debbugs.gnu.org; Sun, 13 Jun 2021 06:15:52 -0400 Received: from fencepost.gnu.org ([2001:470:142:3::e]:38718) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1lsN9e-0001w3-Jh; Sun, 13 Jun 2021 06:15:46 -0400 Received: from [2a01:e0a:1d:7270:af76:b9b:ca24:c465] (port=55286 helo=gnu.org) by fencepost.gnu.org with esmtpsa (TLS1.2:ECDHE_RSA_AES_128_GCM_SHA256:128) (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1lsN9e-0002w0-CQ; Sun, 13 Jun 2021 06:15:46 -0400 From: Ludovic =?UTF-8?Q?Court=C3=A8s?= Date: Sun, 13 Jun 2021 12:15:38 +0200 Message-Id: <20210613101538.10668-5-ludo@gnu.org> X-Mailer: git-send-email 2.32.0 In-Reply-To: <20210613101538.10668-1-ludo@gnu.org> References: <87lf7g7azx.fsf@gnu.org> <20210613101538.10668-1-ludo@gnu.org> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-Spam-Score: -2.3 (--) X-BeenThere: debbugs-submit@debbugs.gnu.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.18 Precedence: list List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Errors-To: debbugs-submit-bounces@debbugs.gnu.org Sender: "Debbugs-submit" X-Spam-Score: -3.3 (---) Suggested by Maxime Devos and Julien Lepiller . * doc/contributing.texi (Commit Access): Clarify Git commit signing setup and fix typo. --- doc/contributing.texi | 4 +++- 1 file changed, 3 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-) diff --git a/doc/contributing.texi b/doc/contributing.texi index 5e59278534..a8bc279936 100644 --- a/doc/contributing.texi +++ b/doc/contributing.texi @@ -1367,11 +1367,13 @@ commits, run: @example git config commit.gpgsign true + +# Substitute the fingerprint of your public PGP key. git config user.signingkey CABBA6EA1DC0FF33 @end example You can prevent yourself from accidentally pushing unsigned commits to -Savannah by using the pre-push Git hook called located at +Savannah by using the pre-push Git hook located at @file{etc/git/pre-push}: @example -- 2.32.0 From unknown Mon Jun 23 09:32:29 2025 X-Loop: help-debbugs@gnu.org Subject: [bug#48696] [PATCH v2 2/4] doc: Add "Addressing Issues" section. Resent-From: Ludovic =?UTF-8?Q?Court=C3=A8s?= Original-Sender: "Debbugs-submit" Resent-CC: guix-patches@gnu.org Resent-Date: Sun, 13 Jun 2021 10:16:03 +0000 Resent-Message-ID: Resent-Sender: help-debbugs@gnu.org X-GNU-PR-Message: followup 48696 X-GNU-PR-Package: guix-patches X-GNU-PR-Keywords: patch To: 48696@debbugs.gnu.org Cc: Ludovic =?UTF-8?Q?Court=C3=A8s?= , Christopher Baines Received: via spool by 48696-submit@debbugs.gnu.org id=B48696.16235793559989 (code B ref 48696); Sun, 13 Jun 2021 10:16:03 +0000 Received: (at 48696) by debbugs.gnu.org; 13 Jun 2021 10:15:55 +0000 Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1]:42690 helo=debbugs.gnu.org) by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.84_2) (envelope-from ) id 1lsN9m-0002aY-Fe for submit@debbugs.gnu.org; Sun, 13 Jun 2021 06:15:54 -0400 Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([209.51.188.92]:41852) by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.84_2) (envelope-from ) id 1lsN9j-0002SL-0B for 48696@debbugs.gnu.org; Sun, 13 Jun 2021 06:15:51 -0400 Received: from fencepost.gnu.org ([2001:470:142:3::e]:38712) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1lsN9d-0001vG-Hf; Sun, 13 Jun 2021 06:15:45 -0400 Received: from [2a01:e0a:1d:7270:af76:b9b:ca24:c465] (port=55286 helo=gnu.org) by fencepost.gnu.org with esmtpsa (TLS1.2:ECDHE_RSA_AES_128_GCM_SHA256:128) (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1lsN9d-0002w0-AL; Sun, 13 Jun 2021 06:15:45 -0400 From: Ludovic =?UTF-8?Q?Court=C3=A8s?= Date: Sun, 13 Jun 2021 12:15:36 +0200 Message-Id: <20210613101538.10668-3-ludo@gnu.org> X-Mailer: git-send-email 2.32.0 In-Reply-To: <20210613101538.10668-1-ludo@gnu.org> References: <87lf7g7azx.fsf@gnu.org> <20210613101538.10668-1-ludo@gnu.org> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-Spam-Score: -2.3 (--) X-BeenThere: debbugs-submit@debbugs.gnu.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.18 Precedence: list List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Errors-To: debbugs-submit-bounces@debbugs.gnu.org Sender: "Debbugs-submit" X-Spam-Score: -3.3 (---) * doc/contributing.texi (Addressing Mistakes): New section. Co-authored-by: Christopher Baines --- doc/contributing.texi | 39 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ 1 file changed, 39 insertions(+) diff --git a/doc/contributing.texi b/doc/contributing.texi index 4ab489173b..00962be11e 100644 --- a/doc/contributing.texi +++ b/doc/contributing.texi @@ -1419,6 +1419,45 @@ you're confident, it's OK to commit. That last part is subject to being adjusted, allowing individuals to commit directly on non-controversial changes on parts they’re familiar with. +@subsection Addressing Issues + +Peer review (@pxref{Submitting Patches}) and tools such as +@command{guix lint} (@pxref{Invoking guix lint}) and the test suite +(@pxref{Running the Test Suite}) should catch issues before they are +pushed. Yet, commits that ``break'' functionality might occasionally +go through. When that happens, there are two priorities: mitigating +the impact, and understanding what happened to reduce the chance of +similar incidents in the future. The responsibility for both these +things primarily lies with those involved, but like everything this is +a group effort. + +Some issues can directly affect all users---for instance because they +make @command{guix pull} fail or break core functionality, because they +break major packages (at build time or run time), or because they +introduce known security vulnerabilities. + +@cindex reverting commits +The people involved in authoring, reviewing, and pushing such +commit(s) should be at the forefront to mitigate their impact in a +timely fashion: by pushing a followup commit to fix it (if possible), +or by reverting it to leave time to come up with a proper fix, and by +communicating with other developers about the problem. + +If these persons are unavailable to address the issue in time, other +committers are entitled to revert the commit(s), explaining in the +commit log and on the mailing list what the problem was, with the goal +of leaving time to the original committer, reviewer(s), and author(s) +to propose a way forward. + +Once the problem has been dealt with, it is the responsibility of +those involved to make sure the situation is understood. If you are +working to understand what happened, focus on gathering information +and avoid assigning any blame. Do ask those involved to describe what +happened, do not ask them to explain the situation---this would +implicitly blame them, which is unhelpful. Accountability comes from +a consensus about the problem, learning from it and improving +processes so that it's less likely to reoccur. + @subsection Commit Revocation In order to reduce the possibility of mistakes, committers will have -- 2.32.0 From unknown Mon Jun 23 09:32:29 2025 X-Loop: help-debbugs@gnu.org Subject: [bug#48696] [PATCH v2 1/4] doc: Structure the "Commit Access" section. Resent-From: Xinglu Chen Original-Sender: "Debbugs-submit" Resent-CC: guix-patches@gnu.org Resent-Date: Sun, 13 Jun 2021 11:52:02 +0000 Resent-Message-ID: Resent-Sender: help-debbugs@gnu.org X-GNU-PR-Message: followup 48696 X-GNU-PR-Package: guix-patches X-GNU-PR-Keywords: patch To: Ludovic =?UTF-8?Q?Court=C3=A8s?= , 48696@debbugs.gnu.org Cc: Ludovic =?UTF-8?Q?Court=C3=A8s?= Received: via spool by 48696-submit@debbugs.gnu.org id=B48696.162358506526316 (code B ref 48696); Sun, 13 Jun 2021 11:52:02 +0000 Received: (at 48696) by debbugs.gnu.org; 13 Jun 2021 11:51:05 +0000 Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1]:42813 helo=debbugs.gnu.org) by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.84_2) (envelope-from ) id 1lsOds-0006qO-Ox for submit@debbugs.gnu.org; Sun, 13 Jun 2021 07:51:05 -0400 Received: from h87-96-130-155.cust.a3fiber.se ([87.96.130.155]:36494 helo=mail.yoctocell.xyz) by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.84_2) (envelope-from ) id 1lsOdq-0006pt-BE for 48696@debbugs.gnu.org; Sun, 13 Jun 2021 07:51:03 -0400 From: Xinglu Chen DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=yoctocell.xyz; s=mail; t=1623585055; bh=YNlrS4mstjnFpeGSTO1rB3AmR1Uk8ny2kalVnVKdCzA=; h=From:To:Cc:Subject:In-Reply-To:References:Date; b=qTQRMnK+nJs0cOhgQo0VE3D1B5uOb2OO4Bd2ze/Vg5J2jOdS2Qe/Q3AvzC4O6I9nt hTtIe47shHki86tyCg4jD0u5LbXRvelSf4y3Nt1WAPb96ehM1AHRP2sVTsd9/8Hinc 4ZmhbYE9PCEaYXJGNX3UUPdc7ra071GCQ0JwaNSU= In-Reply-To: <20210613101538.10668-2-ludo@gnu.org> References: <87lf7g7azx.fsf@gnu.org> <20210613101538.10668-1-ludo@gnu.org> <20210613101538.10668-2-ludo@gnu.org> Date: Sun, 13 Jun 2021 13:50:54 +0200 Message-ID: <87pmwq7zkx.fsf@yoctocell.xyz> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/signed; boundary="=-=-="; micalg=pgp-sha256; protocol="application/pgp-signature" X-Spam-Score: 2.9 (++) X-Spam-Report: Spam detection software, running on the system "debbugs.gnu.org", has NOT identified this incoming email as spam. The original message has been attached to this so you can view it or label similar future email. If you have any questions, see the administrator of that system for details. Content preview: On Sun, Jun 13 2021, Ludovic =?UTF-8?Q?Court=C3=A8s?= wrote: > * doc/contributing.texi (Commit Access): Add introduction and section > heading. Separate OpenPGP setup from commit policy. > --- > doc/contributing.texi | 59 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ [...] Content analysis details: (2.9 points, 10.0 required) pts rule name description ---- ---------------------- -------------------------------------------------- -0.0 SPF_PASS SPF: sender matches SPF record 0.0 SPF_HELO_NONE SPF: HELO does not publish an SPF Record 2.0 PDS_OTHER_BAD_TLD Untrustworthy TLDs [URI: yoctocell.xyz (xyz)] 0.4 RDNS_DYNAMIC Delivered to internal network by host with dynamic-looking rDNS 0.5 FROM_SUSPICIOUS_NTLD From abused NTLD X-BeenThere: debbugs-submit@debbugs.gnu.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.18 Precedence: list List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Errors-To: debbugs-submit-bounces@debbugs.gnu.org Sender: "Debbugs-submit" X-Spam-Score: 2.9 (++) X-Spam-Report: Spam detection software, running on the system "debbugs.gnu.org", has NOT identified this incoming email as spam. The original message has been attached to this so you can view it or label similar future email. If you have any questions, see the administrator of that system for details. Content preview: On Sun, Jun 13 2021, Ludovic =?UTF-8?Q?Court=C3=A8s?= wrote: > * doc/contributing.texi (Commit Access): Add introduction and section > heading. Separate OpenPGP setup from commit policy. > --- > doc/contributing.texi | 59 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ [...] Content analysis details: (2.9 points, 10.0 required) pts rule name description ---- ---------------------- -------------------------------------------------- -0.0 SPF_PASS SPF: sender matches SPF record 0.0 SPF_HELO_NONE SPF: HELO does not publish an SPF Record 2.0 PDS_OTHER_BAD_TLD Untrustworthy TLDs [URI: yoctocell.xyz (xyz)] 0.4 RDNS_DYNAMIC Delivered to internal network by host with dynamic-looking rDNS 1.0 BULK_RE_SUSP_NTLD Precedence bulk and RE: from a suspicious TLD 0.5 FROM_SUSPICIOUS_NTLD From abused NTLD -1.0 MAILING_LIST_MULTI Multiple indicators imply a widely-seen list manager --=-=-= Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable On Sun, Jun 13 2021, Ludovic Court=C3=A8s wrote: > * doc/contributing.texi (Commit Access): Add introduction and section > heading. Separate OpenPGP setup from commit policy. > --- > doc/contributing.texi | 59 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++--------------- > 1 file changed, 38 insertions(+), 21 deletions(-) > > diff --git a/doc/contributing.texi b/doc/contributing.texi > index d67e632520..4ab489173b 100644 > --- a/doc/contributing.texi > +++ b/doc/contributing.texi > @@ -1275,8 +1275,19 @@ this nifty tool! > @section Commit Access >=20=20 > @cindex commit access, for developers > -For frequent contributors, having write access to the repository is > -convenient. When you deem it necessary, consider applying for commit > +Everyone can contribute to Guix without having commit access > +(@pxref{Submitting Patches}). However, for frequent contributors, > +having write access to the repository can be convenient. Commit access > +should not be thought of as a ``badge of honor'' but rather as a > +responsibility a contributor is willing to take to help the project. > + > +The following sections explain how to get commit access, how to be ready > +to push commits, and the policies and community expectations for commits > +pushed upstream. > + > +@subsection Applying for Commit Access > + > +When you deem it necessary, consider applying for commit > access by following these steps: >=20=20 > @enumerate > @@ -1348,6 +1359,27 @@ review and merging system, which, as a consequence= , may lead us to have > fewer people with commit access to the main repository. Stay tuned! > @end quotation >=20=20 > +All commits that are pushed to the central repository on Savannah must > +be signed with an OpenPGP key, and the public key should be uploaded to > +your user account on Savannah and to public key servers, such as > +@code{keys.openpgp.org}. To configure Git to automatically sign > +commits, run: > + > +@example > +git config commit.gpgsign true > +git config user.signingkey CABBA6EA1DC0FF33 > +@end example > + > +You can prevent yourself from accidentally pushing unsigned commits to > +Savannah by using the pre-push Git hook called located at > +@file{etc/git/pre-push}: I think you forgot to remove =E2=80=9Ccalled=E2=80=9D :) --=-=-= Content-Type: application/pgp-signature; name="signature.asc" -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- iQJJBAEBCAAzFiEEAVhh4yyK5+SEykIzrPUJmaL7XHkFAmDF8R4VHHB1YmxpY0B5 b2N0b2NlbGwueHl6AAoJEKz1CZmi+1x5+lYQAJ18HEKqv51A2NJmMw0r/TksInNg 3fLQsc3+dgWM7mODkQINeR26gPX8tDO88H8XjUniD1Os01BEetr4NUKwlcDWqjc3 rPrHd4a0rOZZKKYuZuYXyrT3A6mWuxTsq6slKi8zk77bj6vIiWerGaBruBJMvxuF wrzv6jB4B2xlcZR6vvbSC4GgnIt296+y/nYRTYUMr0tW2faZVKjNQ3EnHbZ5b5E/ A9/qT+kvWC8XWjdbpbgBdv0l/Y3d0yTavW3IxgU3d3OCorQ8UOrcYCicqu3VAgZU 4glX0Lu2Tk8D3AvDlQ9b7sCzGoPXyPQcoHs8jiBCSImUsX3iYZEpicFRwoot7zfo +evSoKB5r77QSp/mU4nr9tHztvKUt97/009jkrtzIk+hV+3uZs9/rd5b38VIwk4j G7YNMWrDaN8G698BM1I+znjDiAsSST7WIKnmXCQuYENA/BpRdcSU3hqEG2GeQyVs NAbGyZFfyhX+LnWsjTQMoVkceurt+OYOFMruU7YT8WRx+nCpw1KUjT5OeWOkM3Mh fAKTi1eUbPbkkQwL8D0Z13R4gfyatW/b3aAKF/M39bDnWUZwqYsqQjHSIQGNNicf z9PuTrXgt+kdwqDNnK0AMRtL/MyC/wdiSvpGhbiPcgMQgfO5lLfheh+V1WkHJ2/Q sTAwGEtBzNzrXByu =QmEv -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --=-=-=-- From unknown Mon Jun 23 09:32:29 2025 X-Loop: help-debbugs@gnu.org Subject: [bug#48696] [PATCH v2 1/4] doc: Structure the "Commit Access" section. Resent-From: Xinglu Chen Original-Sender: "Debbugs-submit" Resent-CC: guix-patches@gnu.org Resent-Date: Sun, 13 Jun 2021 11:57:01 +0000 Resent-Message-ID: Resent-Sender: help-debbugs@gnu.org X-GNU-PR-Message: followup 48696 X-GNU-PR-Package: guix-patches X-GNU-PR-Keywords: patch To: Ludovic =?UTF-8?Q?Court=C3=A8s?= , 48696@debbugs.gnu.org Cc: Ludovic =?UTF-8?Q?Court=C3=A8s?= Received: via spool by 48696-submit@debbugs.gnu.org id=B48696.162358541026804 (code B ref 48696); Sun, 13 Jun 2021 11:57:01 +0000 Received: (at 48696) by debbugs.gnu.org; 13 Jun 2021 11:56:50 +0000 Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1]:42817 helo=debbugs.gnu.org) by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.84_2) (envelope-from ) id 1lsOjS-0006yG-GD for submit@debbugs.gnu.org; Sun, 13 Jun 2021 07:56:50 -0400 Received: from h87-96-130-155.cust.a3fiber.se ([87.96.130.155]:36624 helo=mail.yoctocell.xyz) by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.84_2) (envelope-from ) id 1lsOjQ-0006y3-Rr for 48696@debbugs.gnu.org; Sun, 13 Jun 2021 07:56:49 -0400 From: Xinglu Chen DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=yoctocell.xyz; s=mail; t=1623585403; bh=dT1kSqjM4nXKLesLjkEP+CM0vgj5o1Zb6UfPWj4LHbw=; h=From:To:Cc:Subject:In-Reply-To:References:Date; b=lh1Dx3uiah3YV+oJZUOBgOITb2Sj6mvdXkPBBiEwLmcTZFWEU2KhVCsdu2bR0szvX w+OMQTzEvA4BK+GYIU9GN6QyrGVioXEHnqSgOj/bad/k3HxUwCedWUjSAa4+SdPpCv 1bbEGrsHzM79r/FAo8KISqjkdHq8O92Q4IykXmf4= In-Reply-To: <87pmwq7zkx.fsf@yoctocell.xyz> References: <87lf7g7azx.fsf@gnu.org> <20210613101538.10668-1-ludo@gnu.org> <20210613101538.10668-2-ludo@gnu.org> <87pmwq7zkx.fsf@yoctocell.xyz> Date: Sun, 13 Jun 2021 13:56:42 +0200 Message-ID: <87lf7e7zb9.fsf@yoctocell.xyz> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/signed; boundary="=-=-="; micalg=pgp-sha256; protocol="application/pgp-signature" X-Spam-Score: 2.9 (++) X-Spam-Report: Spam detection software, running on the system "debbugs.gnu.org", has NOT identified this incoming email as spam. The original message has been attached to this so you can view it or label similar future email. If you have any questions, see the administrator of that system for details. Content preview: On Sun, Jun 13 2021, Xinglu Chen wrote: > On Sun, Jun 13 2021, Ludovic =?UTF-8?Q?Court=C3=A8s?= wrote: > >> * doc/contributing.texi (Commit Access): Add introduction and section >> heading. Separate OpenPGP setup from commit policy. >> --- >> doc/contribut [...] Content analysis details: (2.9 points, 10.0 required) pts rule name description ---- ---------------------- -------------------------------------------------- -0.0 SPF_PASS SPF: sender matches SPF record 0.0 SPF_HELO_NONE SPF: HELO does not publish an SPF Record 2.0 PDS_OTHER_BAD_TLD Untrustworthy TLDs [URI: yoctocell.xyz (xyz)] 0.4 RDNS_DYNAMIC Delivered to internal network by host with dynamic-looking rDNS 0.5 FROM_SUSPICIOUS_NTLD From abused NTLD X-BeenThere: debbugs-submit@debbugs.gnu.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.18 Precedence: list List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Errors-To: debbugs-submit-bounces@debbugs.gnu.org Sender: "Debbugs-submit" X-Spam-Score: 2.9 (++) X-Spam-Report: Spam detection software, running on the system "debbugs.gnu.org", has NOT identified this incoming email as spam. The original message has been attached to this so you can view it or label similar future email. If you have any questions, see the administrator of that system for details. Content preview: On Sun, Jun 13 2021, Xinglu Chen wrote: > On Sun, Jun 13 2021, Ludovic =?UTF-8?Q?Court=C3=A8s?= wrote: > >> * doc/contributing.texi (Commit Access): Add introduction and section >> heading. Separate OpenPGP setup from commit policy. >> --- >> doc/contribut [...] Content analysis details: (2.9 points, 10.0 required) pts rule name description ---- ---------------------- -------------------------------------------------- -0.0 SPF_PASS SPF: sender matches SPF record 0.0 SPF_HELO_NONE SPF: HELO does not publish an SPF Record 2.0 PDS_OTHER_BAD_TLD Untrustworthy TLDs [URI: yoctocell.xyz (xyz)] 0.4 RDNS_DYNAMIC Delivered to internal network by host with dynamic-looking rDNS 1.0 BULK_RE_SUSP_NTLD Precedence bulk and RE: from a suspicious TLD 0.5 FROM_SUSPICIOUS_NTLD From abused NTLD -1.0 MAILING_LIST_MULTI Multiple indicators imply a widely-seen list manager --=-=-= Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable On Sun, Jun 13 2021, Xinglu Chen wrote: > On Sun, Jun 13 2021, Ludovic Court=C3=A8s wrote: > >> * doc/contributing.texi (Commit Access): Add introduction and section >> heading. Separate OpenPGP setup from commit policy. >> --- >> doc/contributing.texi | 59 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++--------------- >> 1 file changed, 38 insertions(+), 21 deletions(-) >> >> diff --git a/doc/contributing.texi b/doc/contributing.texi >> index d67e632520..4ab489173b 100644 >> --- a/doc/contributing.texi >> +++ b/doc/contributing.texi >> @@ -1275,8 +1275,19 @@ this nifty tool! >> @section Commit Access >>=20=20 >> @cindex commit access, for developers >> -For frequent contributors, having write access to the repository is >> -convenient. When you deem it necessary, consider applying for commit >> +Everyone can contribute to Guix without having commit access >> +(@pxref{Submitting Patches}). However, for frequent contributors, >> +having write access to the repository can be convenient. Commit access >> +should not be thought of as a ``badge of honor'' but rather as a >> +responsibility a contributor is willing to take to help the project. >> + >> +The following sections explain how to get commit access, how to be ready >> +to push commits, and the policies and community expectations for commits >> +pushed upstream. >> + >> +@subsection Applying for Commit Access >> + >> +When you deem it necessary, consider applying for commit >> access by following these steps: >>=20=20 >> @enumerate >> @@ -1348,6 +1359,27 @@ review and merging system, which, as a consequenc= e, may lead us to have >> fewer people with commit access to the main repository. Stay tuned! >> @end quotation >>=20=20 >> +All commits that are pushed to the central repository on Savannah must >> +be signed with an OpenPGP key, and the public key should be uploaded to >> +your user account on Savannah and to public key servers, such as >> +@code{keys.openpgp.org}. To configure Git to automatically sign >> +commits, run: >> + >> +@example >> +git config commit.gpgsign true >> +git config user.signingkey CABBA6EA1DC0FF33 >> +@end example >> + >> +You can prevent yourself from accidentally pushing unsigned commits to >> +Savannah by using the pre-push Git hook called located at >> +@file{etc/git/pre-push}: > > I think you forgot to remove =E2=80=9Ccalled=E2=80=9D :) Oh, I see that you fixed it in 4/4... --=-=-= Content-Type: application/pgp-signature; name="signature.asc" -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- iQJJBAEBCAAzFiEEAVhh4yyK5+SEykIzrPUJmaL7XHkFAmDF8noVHHB1YmxpY0B5 b2N0b2NlbGwueHl6AAoJEKz1CZmi+1x507sP/240aYijA3YYBPAxA1RiSY0cH8tt 8OsZzvJQn5U0KLfLLd0UyL+mAMzP3/rPO7tYJNKtaRE5q3gW6Fm0VLYWHhuZsglo ne1JOM1/VZPt37YeF0RAiZZwvvlSVHEHVz8RlvEvzz/Tm1xgMW+zooGbwmLxSUaP gm4g7sXGAePx8Yxio6DwKka9yxOcnH17NKotjb4oD3+RrE7xzoH0/vOKQ/WnQcTI fNDMP17Rmh5iD5yZub5x20hxswN9LBUUxW0eNR93XboFxokKhjUAZhpkGSXvXIbX lFNHBqPSGk909xRpvsIrFCd2zct/bjC/SuhqrPNVEth18/ffxsKZH253Jc+YPMrE V7m4vYpaduyTJptbxIwZWPgNC9Ofv6u5yvKPTeKBSDMGVoC+hRITKaLP0b606faY gXuLGOM9Xb2N/l4sjWP8imnDf+442qWn2N90TR/BG0+v4mR3sXOKO0v+AX0BdrtB aoAQ83Qs0SBn0K7OmuKOwATNdmuxonh/H3m8lKQ4oKMaUhiect06/4U71QGvjD9O y/jPo/RqZgRxdWy5EDVFCcBpnaZVYQ+0BVHfU3m1RjkiOFQcin1CpkrssA0rzwYU OsdMEXb7cRmXXkllswy+NyabhcYOYIY90V0SZJx4cbgbfCYJ/573nqNYhkEJ1SJC fLFgm89U02w8j4UE =Rwav -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --=-=-=-- From unknown Mon Jun 23 09:32:29 2025 MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: MIME-tools 5.505 (Entity 5.505) X-Loop: help-debbugs@gnu.org From: help-debbugs@gnu.org (GNU bug Tracking System) To: Ludovic =?UTF-8?Q?Court=C3=A8s?= Subject: bug#48696: closed (Re: bug#48696: [PATCH 0/3] Documenting commit reverts and revocation) Message-ID: References: <87eeczfivx.fsf_-_@gnu.org> <20210527123259.4115-1-ludo@gnu.org> X-Gnu-PR-Message: they-closed 48696 X-Gnu-PR-Package: guix-patches X-Gnu-PR-Keywords: patch Reply-To: 48696@debbugs.gnu.org Date: Fri, 18 Jun 2021 12:39:02 +0000 Content-Type: multipart/mixed; boundary="----------=_1624019942-12487-1" This is a multi-part message in MIME format... ------------=_1624019942-12487-1 Content-Disposition: inline Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8" Your bug report #48696: [PATCH 0/3] Documenting commit reverts and revocation which was filed against the guix-patches package, has been closed. The explanation is attached below, along with your original report. If you require more details, please reply to 48696@debbugs.gnu.org. --=20 48696: http://debbugs.gnu.org/cgi/bugreport.cgi?bug=3D48696 GNU Bug Tracking System Contact help-debbugs@gnu.org with problems ------------=_1624019942-12487-1 Content-Type: message/rfc822 Content-Disposition: inline Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Received: (at 48696-done) by debbugs.gnu.org; 18 Jun 2021 12:38:03 +0000 Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1]:56023 helo=debbugs.gnu.org) by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.84_2) (envelope-from ) id 1luDl5-0003Di-Ar for submit@debbugs.gnu.org; Fri, 18 Jun 2021 08:38:03 -0400 Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([209.51.188.92]:59048) by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.84_2) (envelope-from ) id 1luDl3-0003DE-Bt for 48696-done@debbugs.gnu.org; Fri, 18 Jun 2021 08:38:01 -0400 Received: from fencepost.gnu.org ([2001:470:142:3::e]:45878) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1luDky-0003Sc-21 for 48696-done@debbugs.gnu.org; Fri, 18 Jun 2021 08:37:56 -0400 Received: from [2a01:e0a:1d:7270:af76:b9b:ca24:c465] (port=54588 helo=ribbon) by fencepost.gnu.org with esmtpsa (TLS1.2:ECDHE_RSA_AES_256_GCM_SHA384:256) (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1luDkx-0000O6-Nv for 48696-done@debbugs.gnu.org; Fri, 18 Jun 2021 08:37:55 -0400 From: =?utf-8?Q?Ludovic_Court=C3=A8s?= To: 48696-done@debbugs.gnu.org Subject: Re: bug#48696: [PATCH 0/3] Documenting commit reverts and revocation References: <87lf7g7azx.fsf@gnu.org> <20210613101538.10668-1-ludo@gnu.org> Date: Fri, 18 Jun 2021 14:37:54 +0200 In-Reply-To: <20210613101538.10668-1-ludo@gnu.org> ("Ludovic =?utf-8?Q?Cou?= =?utf-8?Q?rt=C3=A8s=22's?= message of "Sun, 13 Jun 2021 12:15:34 +0200") Message-ID: <87eeczfivx.fsf_-_@gnu.org> User-Agent: Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13) Emacs/27.2 (gnu/linux) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable X-Spam-Score: -2.3 (--) X-Debbugs-Envelope-To: 48696-done X-BeenThere: debbugs-submit@debbugs.gnu.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.18 Precedence: list List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Errors-To: debbugs-submit-bounces@debbugs.gnu.org Sender: "Debbugs-submit" X-Spam-Score: -3.3 (---) Hi! Ludovic Court=C3=A8s skribis: > If there are no objections, I=E2=80=99d like to push within a couple of > days. [...] > doc: Structure the "Commit Access" section. > doc: Add "Addressing Issues" section. > doc: Explain more reasons for commit revocation. > doc: Clarify Git commit signing; fix typo. Pushed as b5b9266e409abb18970bd34557cf087eb29fa713. Thanks Chris and everyone for your feedback! Ludo=E2=80=99. ------------=_1624019942-12487-1 Content-Type: message/rfc822 Content-Disposition: inline Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Received: (at submit) by debbugs.gnu.org; 27 May 2021 12:33:16 +0000 Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1]:50835 helo=debbugs.gnu.org) by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.84_2) (envelope-from ) id 1lmFCN-000670-UU for submit@debbugs.gnu.org; Thu, 27 May 2021 08:33:16 -0400 Received: from lists.gnu.org ([209.51.188.17]:39878) by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.84_2) (envelope-from ) id 1lmFCM-00066t-BF for submit@debbugs.gnu.org; Thu, 27 May 2021 08:33:14 -0400 Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([2001:470:142:3::10]:60350) by lists.gnu.org with esmtps (TLS1.2:ECDHE_RSA_AES_256_GCM_SHA384:256) (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1lmFCM-0004ct-0l for guix-patches@gnu.org; Thu, 27 May 2021 08:33:14 -0400 Received: from fencepost.gnu.org ([2001:470:142:3::e]:42830) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1lmFCL-00054Q-C4; Thu, 27 May 2021 08:33:13 -0400 Received: from [2a01:e0a:1d:7270:af76:b9b:ca24:c465] (port=40494 helo=gnu.org) by fencepost.gnu.org with esmtpsa (TLS1.2:ECDHE_RSA_AES_128_GCM_SHA256:128) (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1lmFCK-0006Ji-CC; Thu, 27 May 2021 08:33:13 -0400 From: =?UTF-8?q?Ludovic=20Court=C3=A8s?= To: guix-patches@gnu.org Subject: [PATCH 0/3] Documenting commit reverts and revocation Date: Thu, 27 May 2021 14:32:59 +0200 Message-Id: <20210527123259.4115-1-ludo@gnu.org> X-Mailer: git-send-email 2.31.1 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-Spam-Score: -2.3 (--) X-Debbugs-Envelope-To: submit Cc: =?UTF-8?q?Ludovic=20Court=C3=A8s?= X-BeenThere: debbugs-submit@debbugs.gnu.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.18 Precedence: list List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Errors-To: debbugs-submit-bounces@debbugs.gnu.org Sender: "Debbugs-submit" X-Spam-Score: -3.3 (---) Hello Guix! Attached is an attempt to: 1. Structure the “Commit Access” section of the manual; 2. Document how to address committers’ mistakes, when to revert commits; 3. Explain under what circumstances maintainers may revoke commit rights. It essentially codifies unwritten rules, but as always, I think it’s better to be explicit about the rules and community expectations. Let me know what you think! I propose to leave a comment period of at least one week, possibly iterating with new versions. Ludo’. Ludovic Courtès (3): doc: Structure the "Commit Access" section. doc: Add "Addressing Mistakes" section. doc: Explain more reasons for commit revocation. doc/contributing.texi | 114 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++-------- 1 file changed, 93 insertions(+), 21 deletions(-) -- 2.31.1 ------------=_1624019942-12487-1--