GNU bug report logs - #61894
[PATCH RFC] Team approval for patches

Previous Next

Full log

View this message in rfc822 format

From: Maxim Cournoyer <maxim.cournoyer <at> gmail.com>
To: Simon Tournier <zimon.toutoune <at> gmail.com>
Cc: guix-maintainers <at> gnu.org, Ludovic Courtès <ludo <at> gnu.org>, Christopher Baines <mail <at> cbaines.net>, 61894 <at> debbugs.gnu.org, 宋文武 <iyzsong <at> envs.net>, Andreas Enge <andreas <at> enge.fr>, guix-devel <at> gnu.org
Subject: [bug#61894] [PATCH RFC] Team approval for patches
Date: Thu, 09 Mar 2023 23:36:39 -0500

Hi Simon et al.,

Simon Tournier <zimon.toutoune <at> gmail.com> writes:

> Hi Maxim,
>
> On Wed, 08 Mar 2023 at 12:05, Maxim Cournoyer <maxim.cournoyer <at> gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> On a side note, it would also introduce some kind of hierarchy in the
>> group, which I dislike.  One of the things that make Guix special is
>> that it's pretty flat -- everybody can participate at the same level, at
>> least between committers).  I'd rather we don't try to emulate Debian on
>> that point.
>
> Hierarchy already exists, as in any social group, as in any group of
> people collaborating.  The hierarchy is currently informal.
>
> And it is not really “pretty flat” because some individuals from that
> group have more (informal) power than other.  That’s not necessary a bad
> thing. :-) For instance, the access to the build farms is restricted,
> the ability to restart Cuirass job is restricted, commit access is
> restricted, money spending is restricted, etc.

Apologies for starting a tangent (which is interesting in its own!).
Rewinding to the beginning, I believe the novelty proposed in this patch
is (quoting the original message):

> With the proposed policy, members of a team would also have to review
> and approve each other’s work.  Formal approval means getting an
> explicit “LGTM” (or similar) from at least one other team member.

In other words, to give teams the power to gate the changes touching
their scope.  That's reasonable, if we have functional teams.  I'd argue
we aren't there yet.  And also:

> I think it avoids the unavoidable misunderstandings that can arise in
> a growing group and help pacify day-to-day collaboration.

Again, "pacify" irks me a bit in this sentence, given I consider
collaboration has and continues to be cordial in our community, unless
I've been living under a rock.

-- 
Thanks,
Maxim

Previous Next

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