From: Daniel Schoepe <daniel@schoepe.org>
To: Jani Nikula <jani@nikula.org>, notmuch@notmuchmail.org
Subject: Re: Patch review/application process
In-Reply-To: <87mxcnbo8e.fsf@nikula.org>
References: <878vo8kdl2.fsf@gilead.invalid> <87mxcnbo8e.fsf@nikula.org>
User-Agent: Notmuch/0.9-19-ga25c9a0 (http://notmuchmail.org) Emacs/23.3.1
	(x86_64-pc-linux-gnu)
Date: Wed, 26 Oct 2011 20:55:33 +0200
Message-ID: <8762jbfuqi.fsf@gilead.invalid>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/signed; boundary="=-=-=";
	micalg=pgp-sha1; protocol="application/pgp-signature"
Precedence: list

--=-=-=
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

On Wed, 26 Oct 2011 18:29:37 +0000, Jani Nikula <jani@nikula.org> wrote:
> The good thing is, there are contributions and review. The bad thing is,
> unless you've hung around long enough, you don't know if the reviewers
> are people whose comments you should really pay attention to or not, and
> either way, fixing the patches seems pointless and frustrating if they
> don't get applied anyway.
>=20
> A MAINTAINERS file might be helpful in identifying some of the key
> people. AUTHORS could be updated to include people with not
> insignificant contributions.

I agree, that sounds like a good idea.

> If the problem is lack of time, I'm not sure if setting up and
> maintaining some world facing web service would help things.

This idea was mainly intended to prevent patches from being forgotten,
an issue not entirely orthogonal to the main point.

> > - Some kind of "voting system" that gets a patch applied if some
> >   number of "trusted" contributors reviewed a patch and think it is
> >   good. I haven't given this idea much thought and I guess it might
> >   lead to a "lack of direction / guiding principles" in the development
> >   of notmuch.
>=20
> I wouldn't put too much emphasis on creating a voting system or a
> process. I do have hopes for the tag sharing mechanism helping in
> tracking the reviewed patches, though. That means figuring out whose
> tags to trust anyway.

Yes, I didn't envision some process that's formalized down to every
detail, but more of a general guideline like "if at least n people out
of {set of trusted contributors} agree and there's no controversy about
the patch, anyone with commit access is allowed to apply the patch". I
think this idea would help mainly with getting small patches like [1]
applied more quickly.

[1] id:"1309890780-8214-1-git-send-email-pieter@praet.org"

Cheers,
Daniel

--=-=-=
Content-Type: application/pgp-signature

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.11 (GNU/Linux)
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=imED
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
--=-=-=--