GNU bug report logs - #25899
[PATCH] HACKING: Describe guix-patches@gnu.org as the list for patches.

Previous Next

To add a comment to this bug, you must first unarchive it, by sending
a message to control AT debbugs.gnu.org, with unarchive 25899 in the body.
You can then email your comments to 25899 AT debbugs.gnu.org in the normal way.

Toggle the display of automated, internal messages from the tracker.

Message #5 received at submit <at> debbugs.gnu.org (full text, mbox):

From: contact.ng0 <at> cryptolab.net
To: guix-patches <at> gnu.org
Cc: ng0 <contact.ng0 <at> cryptolab.net>
Subject: [PATCH] HACKING: Describe guix-patches <at> gnu.org as the list for
 patches.
Date: Tue, 28 Feb 2017 11:51:20 +0000

From: ng0 <contact.ng0 <at> cryptolab.net>

---
 HACKING | 6 ++++--
 1 file changed, 4 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)

diff --git a/HACKING b/HACKING
index 1e0bddfaf..76568cfcb 100644
--- a/HACKING
+++ b/HACKING
@@ -5,6 +5,7 @@
 Copyright © 2012, 2013, 2014, 2016 Ludovic Courtès <ludo <at> gnu.org>
 Copyright © 2015, 2017 Mathieu Lirzin <mthl <at> gnu.org>
 Copyright © 2017 Leo Famulari <leo <at> famulari.name>
+Copyright © 2017 ng0 <contact.ng0 <at> cryptolab.net>
 
   Copying and distribution of this file, with or without modification,
   are permitted in any medium without royalty provided the copyright
@@ -25,8 +26,9 @@ convenient.  When you deem it necessary, feel free to ask for it on the
 mailing list.  When you get commit access, please make sure to follow the
 policy below (discussions of the policy can take place on guix-devel <at> gnu.org.)
 
-Non-trivial patches should always be posted to guix-devel <at> gnu.org (trivial
-patches include fixing typos, etc.)
+Non-trivial patches should always be posted to guix-patches <at> gnu.org (trivial
+patches include fixing typos, etc.).  The patches sent to this list can be
+tracked in its [[https://debbugs.gnu.org/cgi/pkgreport.cgi?pkg=guix-patches][debbugs webinterface]].
 
 For patches that just add a new package, and a simple one, it’s OK to commit,
 if you’re confident (which means you successfully built it in a chroot setup,
-- 
2.12.0

Message #8 received at 25899 <at> debbugs.gnu.org (full text, mbox):

From: Marius Bakke <mbakke <at> fastmail.com>
To: contact.ng0 <at> cryptolab.net, 25899 <at> debbugs.gnu.org
Subject: Re: bug#25899: [PATCH] HACKING: Describe guix-patches <at> gnu.org as the
 list	for patches.
Date: Tue, 28 Feb 2017 15:08:30 +0100

[Message part 1 (text/plain, inline)]

contact.ng0 <at> cryptolab.net writes:


> diff --git a/HACKING b/HACKING
> index 1e0bddfaf..76568cfcb 100644
> --- a/HACKING
> +++ b/HACKING
> @@ -25,8 +26,9 @@ convenient.  When you deem it necessary, feel free to ask for it on the
>  mailing list.  When you get commit access, please make sure to follow the
>  policy below (discussions of the policy can take place on guix-devel <at> gnu.org.)
>  
> -Non-trivial patches should always be posted to guix-devel <at> gnu.org (trivial
> -patches include fixing typos, etc.)
> +Non-trivial patches should always be posted to guix-patches <at> gnu.org (trivial
> +patches include fixing typos, etc.).  The patches sent to this list can be
> +tracked in its [[https://debbugs.gnu.org/cgi/pkgreport.cgi?pkg=guix-patches][debbugs webinterface]].

I prefer using guix-devel for discussing patches and want to keep using
it normally. I see "guix-patches" more of a "package incubator",
especially for newcomers. For regular contributors using "guix-devel" to
ask for feedback before pushing is fine too IMO.

[signature.asc (application/pgp-signature, inline)]

Message #11 received at 25899 <at> debbugs.gnu.org (full text, mbox):

From: Ricardo Wurmus <rekado <at> elephly.net>
To: Marius Bakke <mbakke <at> fastmail.com>
Cc: 25899 <at> debbugs.gnu.org, contact.ng0 <at> cryptolab.net
Subject: Re: bug#25899: [PATCH] HACKING: Describe guix-patches <at> gnu.org as the
 list for patches.
Date: Tue, 28 Feb 2017 17:22:36 +0100

Marius Bakke <mbakke <at> fastmail.com> writes:

> contact.ng0 <at> cryptolab.net writes:
>
>
>> diff --git a/HACKING b/HACKING
>> index 1e0bddfaf..76568cfcb 100644
>> --- a/HACKING
>> +++ b/HACKING
>> @@ -25,8 +26,9 @@ convenient.  When you deem it necessary, feel free to ask for it on the
>>  mailing list.  When you get commit access, please make sure to follow the
>>  policy below (discussions of the policy can take place on guix-devel <at> gnu.org.)
>>
>> -Non-trivial patches should always be posted to guix-devel <at> gnu.org (trivial
>> -patches include fixing typos, etc.)
>> +Non-trivial patches should always be posted to guix-patches <at> gnu.org (trivial
>> +patches include fixing typos, etc.).  The patches sent to this list can be
>> +tracked in its [[https://debbugs.gnu.org/cgi/pkgreport.cgi?pkg=guix-patches][debbugs webinterface]].
>
> I prefer using guix-devel for discussing patches and want to keep using
> it normally. I see "guix-patches" more of a "package incubator",
> especially for newcomers. For regular contributors using "guix-devel" to
> ask for feedback before pushing is fine too IMO.

In my opinion *most* patches (especially patches to add packages) ought
to be sent to “guix-patches”.  “guix-devel” is for discussions of plans,
features, and more involved changes.

What’s great about “guix-patches” is that we can much more easily keep
track of the patches that are submitted in this way.  With “guix-devel”
discussions it’s hard to figure out if further action is required.

@ng0: The patch looks good to me, though I’d prefer if it included
additional instructions that are specific to patch submission to a
debbugs-backed list.  It’s worth noting that patches be either sent in
one direct email or as replies to a ticket acknowledgement.  This
prevents flooding of the tracker.

Do you think you could add language like that?  Just a sentence or two
would probably be sufficient.

--
Ricardo

GPG: BCA6 89B6 3655 3801 C3C6  2150 197A 5888 235F ACAC
https://elephly.net

Message #14 received at 25899 <at> debbugs.gnu.org (full text, mbox):

From: ng0 <contact.ng0 <at> cryptolab.net>
To: Marius Bakke <mbakke <at> fastmail.com>
Cc: 25899 <at> debbugs.gnu.org
Subject: Re: bug#25899: [PATCH] HACKING: Describe guix-patches <at> gnu.org as the
 list	for patches.
Date: Wed, 1 Mar 2017 12:04:37 +0000

On 17-02-28 15:08:30, Marius Bakke wrote:
> contact.ng0 <at> cryptolab.net writes:
> 
> 
> > diff --git a/HACKING b/HACKING
> > index 1e0bddfaf..76568cfcb 100644
> > --- a/HACKING
> > +++ b/HACKING
> > @@ -25,8 +26,9 @@ convenient.  When you deem it necessary, feel free to ask for it on the
> >  mailing list.  When you get commit access, please make sure to follow the
> >  policy below (discussions of the policy can take place on guix-devel <at> gnu.org.)
> >  
> > -Non-trivial patches should always be posted to guix-devel <at> gnu.org (trivial
> > -patches include fixing typos, etc.)
> > +Non-trivial patches should always be posted to guix-patches <at> gnu.org (trivial
> > +patches include fixing typos, etc.).  The patches sent to this list can be
> > +tracked in its [[https://debbugs.gnu.org/cgi/pkgreport.cgi?pkg=guix-patches][debbugs webinterface]].
> 
> I prefer using guix-devel for discussing patches and want to keep using
> it normally. I see "guix-patches" more of a "package incubator",
> especially for newcomers. For regular contributors using "guix-devel" to
> ask for feedback before pushing is fine too IMO.

That's not the intention of guix-patches, and it never was. Please read
the annoncement email and the discussion before it.

Message #17 received at 25899 <at> debbugs.gnu.org (full text, mbox):

From: ng0 <contact.ng0 <at> cryptolab.net>
To: Ricardo Wurmus <rekado <at> elephly.net>
Cc: 25899 <at> debbugs.gnu.org, Marius Bakke <mbakke <at> fastmail.com>
Subject: Re: bug#25899: [PATCH] HACKING: Describe guix-patches <at> gnu.org as the
 list for patches.
Date: Wed, 1 Mar 2017 12:06:28 +0000

On 17-02-28 17:22:36, Ricardo Wurmus wrote:
> 
> Marius Bakke <mbakke <at> fastmail.com> writes:
> 
> > contact.ng0 <at> cryptolab.net writes:
> >
> >
> >> diff --git a/HACKING b/HACKING
> >> index 1e0bddfaf..76568cfcb 100644
> >> --- a/HACKING
> >> +++ b/HACKING
> >> @@ -25,8 +26,9 @@ convenient.  When you deem it necessary, feel free to ask for it on the
> >>  mailing list.  When you get commit access, please make sure to follow the
> >>  policy below (discussions of the policy can take place on guix-devel <at> gnu.org.)
> >>
> >> -Non-trivial patches should always be posted to guix-devel <at> gnu.org (trivial
> >> -patches include fixing typos, etc.)
> >> +Non-trivial patches should always be posted to guix-patches <at> gnu.org (trivial
> >> +patches include fixing typos, etc.).  The patches sent to this list can be
> >> +tracked in its [[https://debbugs.gnu.org/cgi/pkgreport.cgi?pkg=guix-patches][debbugs webinterface]].
> >
> > I prefer using guix-devel for discussing patches and want to keep using
> > it normally. I see "guix-patches" more of a "package incubator",
> > especially for newcomers. For regular contributors using "guix-devel" to
> > ask for feedback before pushing is fine too IMO.
> 
> In my opinion *most* patches (especially patches to add packages) ought
> to be sent to “guix-patches”.  “guix-devel” is for discussions of plans,
> features, and more involved changes.
> 
> What’s great about “guix-patches” is that we can much more easily keep
> track of the patches that are submitted in this way.  With “guix-devel”
> discussions it’s hard to figure out if further action is required.
> 
> @ng0: The patch looks good to me, though I’d prefer if it included
> additional instructions that are specific to patch submission to a
> debbugs-backed list.  It’s worth noting that patches be either sent in
> one direct email or as replies to a ticket acknowledgement.  This
> prevents flooding of the tracker.
> 
> Do you think you could add language like that?  Just a sentence or two
> would probably be sufficient.
> 
> --
> Ricardo
> 
> GPG: BCA6 89B6 3655 3801 C3C6  2150 197A 5888 235F ACAC
> https://elephly.net
> 

Thanks. Okay, I will see to get it fixed similar to the patch which
changed/added the guix-patches@ to the doc/*.texi

Message #22 received at 25899 <at> debbugs.gnu.org (full text, mbox):

From: ludo <at> gnu.org (Ludovic Courtès)
To: Ricardo Wurmus <rekado <at> elephly.net>
Cc: 25899 <at> debbugs.gnu.org, Marius Bakke <mbakke <at> fastmail.com>,
 contact.ng0 <at> cryptolab.net
Subject: Re: bug#25899: [PATCH] HACKING: Describe guix-patches <at> gnu.org as the
 list for patches.
Date: Tue, 14 Mar 2017 10:24:08 +0100

Hello!

Ricardo Wurmus <rekado <at> elephly.net> skribis:

> @ng0: The patch looks good to me, though I’d prefer if it included
> additional instructions that are specific to patch submission to a
> debbugs-backed list.  It’s worth noting that patches be either sent in
> one direct email or as replies to a ticket acknowledgement.  This
> prevents flooding of the tracker.
>
> Do you think you could add language like that?  Just a sentence or two
> would probably be sufficient.

So what’s the conclusion of this?  :-)

Commit 230efa876fea3b38f78502bd759b2943651929de updated the manual to
mention guix-patches.  Do we need anything more?

Thanks,
Ludo’.

Message #25 received at 25899 <at> debbugs.gnu.org (full text, mbox):

From: ng0 <contact.ng0 <at> cryptolab.net>
To: Ludovic Courtès <ludo <at> gnu.org>
Cc: Ricardo Wurmus <rekado <at> elephly.net>, 25899 <at> debbugs.gnu.org,
 Marius Bakke <mbakke <at> fastmail.com>
Subject: Re: bug#25899: [PATCH] HACKING: Describe guix-patches <at> gnu.org as the
 list for patches.
Date: Tue, 14 Mar 2017 12:24:40 +0000

Ludovic Courtès transcribed 0.7K bytes:
> Hello!
> 
> Ricardo Wurmus <rekado <at> elephly.net> skribis:
> 
> > @ng0: The patch looks good to me, though I’d prefer if it included
> > additional instructions that are specific to patch submission to a
> > debbugs-backed list.  It’s worth noting that patches be either sent in
> > one direct email or as replies to a ticket acknowledgement.  This
> > prevents flooding of the tracker.
> >
> > Do you think you could add language like that?  Just a sentence or two
> > would probably be sufficient.
> 
> So what’s the conclusion of this?  :-)

I am busy, I will finish this when I have the time to work on it.

> Commit 230efa876fea3b38f78502bd759b2943651929de updated the manual to
> mention guix-patches.  Do we need anything more?

Apparently yes, as people still send patches to guix-devel and at the
time when I wrote this patch were not aware of guix-patches.

> Thanks,
> Ludo’.

Message #28 received at 25899 <at> debbugs.gnu.org (full text, mbox):

From: Ricardo Wurmus <rekado <at> elephly.net>
To: ng0 <contact.ng0 <at> cryptolab.net>
Cc: 25899 <at> debbugs.gnu.org, Ludovic Courtès <ludo <at> gnu.org>,
 Marius Bakke <mbakke <at> fastmail.com>
Subject: Re: bug#25899: [PATCH] HACKING: Describe guix-patches <at> gnu.org as the
 list for patches.
Date: Tue, 14 Mar 2017 12:27:52 +0100

ng0 <contact.ng0 <at> cryptolab.net> writes:

>> Commit 230efa876fea3b38f78502bd759b2943651929de updated the manual to
>> mention guix-patches.  Do we need anything more?
>
> Apparently yes, as people still send patches to guix-devel and at the
> time when I wrote this patch were not aware of guix-patches.

I agree.  It would be good to mention “guix-patches” in HACKING.  To me,
patches that are in “guix-patches” have a much lower risk to be drowned
out by other discussions.

--
Ricardo

GPG: BCA6 89B6 3655 3801 C3C6  2150 197A 5888 235F ACAC
https://elephly.net

Message #33 received at 25899-done <at> debbugs.gnu.org (full text, mbox):

From: ludo <at> gnu.org (Ludovic Courtès)
To: Ricardo Wurmus <rekado <at> elephly.net>
Cc: 25899-done <at> debbugs.gnu.org, Marius Bakke <mbakke <at> fastmail.com>,
 ng0 <contact.ng0 <at> cryptolab.net>
Subject: Re: bug#25899: [PATCH] HACKING: Describe guix-patches <at> gnu.org as the
 list for patches.
Date: Wed, 15 Mar 2017 17:01:39 +0100

Ricardo Wurmus <rekado <at> elephly.net> skribis:

> ng0 <contact.ng0 <at> cryptolab.net> writes:
>
>>> Commit 230efa876fea3b38f78502bd759b2943651929de updated the manual to
>>> mention guix-patches.  Do we need anything more?
>>
>> Apparently yes, as people still send patches to guix-devel and at the
>> time when I wrote this patch were not aware of guix-patches.
>
> I agree.  It would be good to mention “guix-patches” in HACKING.  To me,
> patches that are in “guix-patches” have a much lower risk to be drowned
> out by other discussions.

Done in bc551cf32b6ccb3f8dd60b1d0d4e3c3e88cb1f8d!

Ludo'.

Previous Next

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