[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: How can we decrease the cognitive overhead for contributors?
From: |
Maxim Cournoyer |
Subject: |
Re: How can we decrease the cognitive overhead for contributors? |
Date: |
Tue, 12 Sep 2023 10:42:53 -0400 |
User-agent: |
Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13) Emacs/28.2 (gnu/linux) |
Hi Simon,
Simon Tournier <zimon.toutoune@gmail.com> writes:
> Hi Liliana,
>
> On Mon, 11 Sep 2023 at 19:53, Liliana Marie Prikler
> <liliana.prikler@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> For "patch does not apply", the forge solution is typically to send a
>> notification to the issuer.
>
> No, that does not match my small experience. Because often the issuer
> is gone or not responding. As a reviewer using the forge solution, I am
> still able to pull the issuer branch and then resolve the conflicts if
> any.
>
> Using “our” workflow, I fail earlier in the process. I am not able to
> apply the patches against any branches (pull the PR somehow). An
> example:
>
> [bug#62202] [PATCH 0/21] Juliahub import script.
> https://issues.guix.gnu.org/msgid/871qlq89kz.fsf@ngraves.fr
>
> Even before looking at it, I have to spend some time to find a way to
> manually apply the patches. Then, rebasing on the top of master could
> lead to conflict but that another story and the same appears whatever
> the workflow.
I think this kind of problem has improved though, since we deploy by
default our etc/git/config snippet, which sets 'useAutoBase = true'.
At least I don't have a problem when applying patches with 'git am -3s'.
I don't see what is specially difficult here (perhaps there are too many
options available to do the task?), but we could document some ways,
perhaps adding a new 'Reviewing others work' section to the Contributing
node? It could show how to do it from either an Gnus perspective
(Emacs) or via 'wget -O- $mumi_url | git am -3s' etc. and provide some
guidance, perhaps with a link to
<https://notabug.org/apteryx/guix-api-examples/src/master/command-line-hacks.sh>
until this is automated in a 'guix review' command or similar.
--
Thanks,
Maxim
- Re: How can we decrease the cognitive overhead for contributors?, (continued)
- 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, 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 <=
- 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
- Re: How can we decrease the cognitive overhead for contributors?, MSavoritias, 2023/09/17
- Re: How can we decrease the cognitive overhead for contributors?, Liliana Marie Prikler, 2023/09/17
- Re: How can we decrease the cognitive overhead for contributors?, Simon Tournier, 2023/09/18
- Re: How can we decrease the cognitive overhead for contributors?, MSavoritias, 2023/09/18
- Re: How can we decrease the cognitive overhead for contributors?, Simon Tournier, 2023/09/18