[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: Incentives for review
From: |
Thiago Jung Bauermann |
Subject: |
Re: Incentives for review |
Date: |
Wed, 20 Oct 2021 18:37:06 -0300 |
Hello,
Em terça-feira, 19 de outubro de 2021, às 12:41:23 -03, Ludovic Courtès
escreveu:
> zimoun <zimon.toutoune@gmail.com> skribis:
> > On Tue, 19 Oct 2021 at 14:56, Ludovic Courtès
<ludovic.courtes@inria.fr> wrote:
> [...]
>
> I would like to see us committers do more review work. But I also view
> things from a different angle: everyone contributes in their own way,
> and each contribution is a gift. We can insist on community
> expectations (reviewing other people’s work), but we should also welcome
> contributions as they come.
Thank you for viewing it from that angle. On a personal note, I’m aware
that my ratio of patches reviewed / patches posted approaches zero and this
makes me a bit uncomfortable every time I type `git send-email`.
Sometimes I try to review patches, but it’s not a very productive endeavour
for a few reasons:
1. In many cases, I don’t see anything wrong with the patch I’m looking at.
In those cases I could reply saying so, but I refrain from doing that
because if such message comes from someone who doesn’t have much experience
in the part of Guix that the patch touches (which is almost always the case
for me when reviewing patches), then how much values does that really add?
2. Going through the guix-patches mailing list looking for submissions that
touch the few areas of Guix where I have at least some experience. I don’t
think I found an effective method yet (in part the problem is on my side
because the search function of the email client I use isn’t very reliable).
> There’s a balance to be found between no formal commitment on behalf of
> committers, and a strict and codified commitment similar to what is
> required for participation in the distros list¹.
>
> A good middle ground may be to provide incentives for review. How? I’m
> not sure exactly, but first by making it clear that review is makes the
> project move forward and is invaluable. You once proposed having
> ‘Reviewed-By’ tags to acknowledge non-committer reviews, and I think
> that would be one step in that direction.
I like the ‘Reviewed-by’ idea and I agree that it provides a tangible
incentive. A ‘Tested-by:’ tag would have the same effect as well, as
suggested by simon.
> Perhaps there are other things we could do?
One thing that would help me would be some way to “subscribe” to changes in
certain areas of Guix. That way, when a patch is submitted which touches
those areas I would be automatically copied on the emails that go to the
guix-patches mailing list. “areas of Guix” could be defined by paths in the
repo, guile modules or regexps matching package names, for example.
--
Thanks,
Thiago
- Re: Tricking peer review, (continued)
- Re: Tricking peer review, zimoun, 2021/10/19
- Re: Tricking peer review, Ludovic Courtès, 2021/10/19
- Re: Tricking peer review, zimoun, 2021/10/19
- Incentives for review, Ludovic Courtès, 2021/10/19
- Re: Incentives for review, zimoun, 2021/10/19
- Re: Incentives for review, Ricardo Wurmus, 2021/10/19
- Re: Incentives for review, Christine Lemmer-Webber, 2021/10/19
- Re: Incentives for review, Joshua Branson, 2021/10/19
- Re: Incentives for review, Ludovic Courtès, 2021/10/21
- Re: Incentives for review,
Thiago Jung Bauermann <=
- Re: Incentives for review, Ricardo Wurmus, 2021/10/21
- Re: Incentives for review, zimoun, 2021/10/21
- Re: Incentives for review, Thiago Jung Bauermann, 2021/10/22
- Re: Incentives for review, Artem Chernyak, 2021/10/21
- Re: Incentives for review, Thiago Jung Bauermann, 2021/10/22
- Re: Incentives for review, Kyle Meyer, 2021/10/22
- Re: Incentives for review, Thiago Jung Bauermann, 2021/10/22
- Re: Incentives for review, zimoun, 2021/10/23
- public-inbox/elfeed -> Maildir bridge (was: Incentives for review), Kyle Meyer, 2021/10/23
- Re: public-inbox/elfeed -> Maildir bridge (was: Incentives for review), Jonathan McHugh, 2021/10/24