[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: |
Sat, 09 Sep 2023 21:40:32 +0200 |
User-agent: |
mu4e 1.10.5; emacs 28.2 |
Liliana Marie Prikler <liliana.prikler@gmail.com> writes:
>> 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?
> Again, define superior.
No, I won’t. I think it’s obvious that our review process isn’t working
*well*. So the argument that our current workflow allows for effective
review is dubious. Not saying that you made that claim, just that it’s
hard to convince others of adopting our ways when the results just
aren’t great.
>> 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.)
> I think this is a bit of an apples to oranges comparison.
Exactly. Apples and oranges are both fruit, full of sugar and fiber,
and some people prefer one over the other.
> Even for our
> wip branches, we mostly adhere to the guidelines that govern master,
> it's mostly the rule regarding breaking changes that is relaxed. We
> wouldn't have well-functioning wip branches if those forewent *all*
> communication efforts. The only common ground I can see is that all
> feature branches – or at least those that don't die – get merged to the
> main branch in either workflow.
Yes, that’s my point.
--
Ricardo
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, 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, 2023/09/09
- 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
- Re: to PR or not to PR, is /that/ the question?, Giovanni Biscuolo, 2023/09/14
- Re: to PR or not to PR, is /that/ the question?, Simon Tournier, 2023/09/14