[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: How can we decrease the cognitive overhead for contributors?
From: |
Ricardo Wurmus |
Subject: |
Re: How can we decrease the cognitive overhead for contributors? |
Date: |
Fri, 08 Sep 2023 22:24:06 +0200 |
User-agent: |
mu4e 1.10.5; emacs 28.2 |
Liliana Marie Prikler <liliana.prikler@gmail.com> writes:
>> On Github, Pull Request branches are like our WIP branches. They are
>> how we arrive at acceptable changes. Picky people like me would then
>> go back and write new atomic commits for the effective diff, but in
>> my role as a reviewer I usually rebase, squash, and merge.
>>
>> This workflow is more familiar to some and alienating to others, but
>> both of these workflows would work fine for Guix. But today our
>> tools can only accommodate *one* workflow.
> I'd imagine that rebase, squash and merge would exacerbate the workload
> on the committer side and I think that most popular projects on those
> forges already experience similar effects to us despite folks just
> merging the requests as-is and in part even getting paid by big tech
> for doing so.
Look, I’m relating merely my work experience here as someone who
regularly reviews pull requests on Github. Github has buttons for
“Rebase and merge”, “Squash and merge”, and “Create a merge commit”, so
that part is automated.
I’m not saying that this is the workflow we should adopt. I’m saying
that these platforms — for better or worse — encourage *different*
workflows, and for some this is what they are most comfortable with.
Must we force a single workflow on everyone, even if our track record in
reviewing and merging doesn’t clearly show that our way is superior?
Recall that the reason for my response at this point in the thread is
your statement:
> Hiding obsolete versions of a
> pull request is in practice implemented either by pushing more commits
> on top of the existing one, often with dubious commit messages or by
> force-pushing a branch, neither of which is an acceptable solution for
> Guix.
I’m trying to convey that this workflow is similar to how we would push
to wip-* branches and informally discuss open issues out of band. (And
even in that scenario, we are rather limited by the way our shared
repository with all-or-nothing permission management works.)
--
Ricardo
- Re: How can we decrease the cognitive overhead for contributors?, (continued)
- Re: How can we decrease the cognitive overhead for contributors?, Katherine Cox-Buday, 2023/09/12
- Re: How can we decrease the cognitive overhead for contributors?, Efraim Flashner, 2023/09/08
- Re: How can we decrease the cognitive overhead for contributors?, Giovanni Biscuolo, 2023/09/08
- Re: How can we decrease the cognitive overhead for contributors?, Maxim Cournoyer, 2023/09/05
- Re: How can we decrease the cognitive overhead for contributors?, kiasoc5, 2023/09/06
Re: How can we decrease the cognitive overhead for contributors?, Ricardo Wurmus, 2023/09/08
- Re: How can we decrease the cognitive overhead for contributors?, Liliana Marie Prikler, 2023/09/08
- Re: How can we decrease the cognitive overhead for contributors?,
Ricardo Wurmus <=
- Re: How can we decrease the cognitive overhead for contributors?, Liliana Marie Prikler, 2023/09/08
- Re: How can we decrease the cognitive overhead for contributors?, Ricardo Wurmus, 2023/09/09
- Re: How can we decrease the cognitive overhead for contributors?, Liliana Marie Prikler, 2023/09/09
- Re: How can we decrease the cognitive overhead for contributors?, Simon Tournier, 2023/09/11
- Re: How can we decrease the cognitive overhead for contributors?, Liliana Marie Prikler, 2023/09/11
- Re: How can we decrease the cognitive overhead for contributors?, Simon Tournier, 2023/09/11
- Re: How can we decrease the cognitive overhead for contributors?, Maxim Cournoyer, 2023/09/12
- Re: How can we decrease the cognitive overhead for contributors?, Simon Tournier, 2023/09/12
- to PR or not to PR, is /that/ the question?, Giovanni Biscuolo, 2023/09/13
- Re: to PR or not to PR, is /that/ the question?, Simon Tournier, 2023/09/13