GNU bug report logs - #51061
[PATCH v2 01/23] guix: Add extracting-download.

Previous Next

Full log

View this message in rfc822 format

From: Ludovic Courtès <ludo <at> gnu.org>
To: Hartmut Goebel <h.goebel <at> crazy-compilers.com>
Cc: 42180 <at> debbugs.gnu.org, Maxime Devos <maximedevos <at> telenet.be>, GNU Guix maintainers <guix-maintainers <at> gnu.org>, 51061 <at> debbugs.gnu.org
Subject: [bug#51061] [PATCH v2 01/23] guix: Add extracting-download.
Date: Fri, 08 Oct 2021 00:20:36 +0200

Hi,

Hartmut Goebel <h.goebel <at> crazy-compilers.com> skribis:

> thanks for the review. I applied the changes as discussed, fixed some
> last-minute bug in the importer :-) and pushed as 
> f86f7e24b39928247729020df0134e2e1c4cde62.

That’s really not how we work, nor how we should work IMO.  There were
~24h between the time you sent this series and the time you pushed it,
only quick comments on 2 patches out of 23, and zero “LGTMs”.

I would very much like us to stick to our standards, in particular when
proposing changes or additions to core APIs under (guix …).  These
things just cannot go in without proper review; they cannot go in
without adequate testing and documentation, as has always been done in
these areas.

Perhaps views differ on what “proper review” is, and we can discuss it
if in doubt.  For one thing, and I thought you were familiar with it
since you’ve been around for some time, when someone is done reviewing a
specific bit, they explicitly say so with “LGTM” or similar.

Now, how do we move forward?  I would prefer a single patch reverting
all 23 patches now rather than a myriad of tiny fixups hastily reviewed.
WDYT?

I should say that while I’m unhappy with the way this has been done, I’m
glad you’re made this much progress on the Erlang front, and I think
it’s a nice addition.

Thanks,
Ludo’.

Previous Next

GNU bug tracking system
Copyright (C) 1999 Darren O. Benham, 1997,2003 nCipher Corporation Ltd, 1994-97 Ian Jackson.