| Message ID | 20200101162945.4946-1-ludo@gnu.org |
|---|---|
| Headers | show |
Ludovic Courtès <ludo@gnu.org> writes: > As you know, Chris Baines has been working towards automated testing > of submitted patches. One of the goals is to allow part of the > QA to be automated, such that, eventually, approved merges could be > automated. In that spirit, we would have an incentive to not add more > committers (probably also a good thing security-wise). That’s why I > added a note on this topic. I’m looking forward to this. Ultimately, it is a good thing to limit the number of people who can write to the repository.
Hello! Just a heads-up for fellow maintainers (Tobias, Marius, Maxim): could you send a “+1” or whatever you deem appropriate :-) to this discussion? I’d like to make sure we’re on the same page. https://issues.guix.gnu.org/issue/38846 Ludo’. Ludovic Courtès <ludo@gnu.org> skribis: > Hello Guix! > > Happy new year, merry 12 nivôse, or whatever celebration is > appropriate for you! :-) > > These patches do three things: > > 1. Move text from ‘HACKING’ to ‘doc/contributing.texi’. > > 2. Encourage patch review for committers. > > 3. Add a tentative policy for granting commit access (the last > patch of this series). > > I expect #1 and #2 to be uncontroversial, but I’d like feedback on #3! > > So far, we’ve been giving commit access in a very ad-hoc fashion. > Often it was Ricardo or myself who ended up taking care of that, > even though other people have admin rights on Savannah to add/remove > members. > > We briefly discussed it among maintainers after the maintainer > collective expanded, and it seems to me that perhaps now is a good time > to formalize things a bit—to clarify what contributors may expect and > to increase transparency. Hence this proposal of a simple co-optation > policy. > > As you know, Chris Baines has been working towards automated testing > of submitted patches. One of the goals is to allow part of the > QA to be automated, such that, eventually, approved merges could be > automated. In that spirit, we would have an incentive to not add more > committers (probably also a good thing security-wise). That’s why I > added a note on this topic. > > What do people think? > > Thanks, > Ludo’. > > Ludovic Courtès (4): > doc: Add "Tracking Bugs and Patches" section. > doc: Move "Commit Access" section from 'HACKING' to the manual. > doc: Encourage patch review. > DRAFT doc: Add a cooption policy for commit access. > > HACKING | 58 +------------- > doc/contributing.texi | 171 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++-- > doc/guix.texi | 2 +- > 3 files changed, 168 insertions(+), 63 deletions(-)
Hi, On Wed, 1 Jan 2020 at 17:31, Ludovic Courtès <ludo@gnu.org> wrote: > 1. Move text from ‘HACKING’ to ‘doc/contributing.texi’. > > 2. Encourage patch review for committers. > > 3. Add a tentative policy for granting commit access (the last > patch of this series). > > I expect #1 and #2 to be uncontroversial, but I’d like feedback on #3! > > So far, we’ve been giving commit access in a very ad-hoc fashion. > Often it was Ricardo or myself who ended up taking care of that, > even though other people have admin rights on Savannah to add/remove > members. > > We briefly discussed it among maintainers after the maintainer > collective expanded, and it seems to me that perhaps now is a good time > to formalize things a bit—to clarify what contributors may expect and > to increase transparency. Hence this proposal of a simple co-optation > policy. > > As you know, Chris Baines has been working towards automated testing > of submitted patches. One of the goals is to allow part of the > QA to be automated, such that, eventually, approved merges could be > automated. In that spirit, we would have an incentive to not add more > committers (probably also a good thing security-wise). That’s why I > added a note on this topic. > > What do people think? Personally, I find this proposal nice. As I already said when commenting on each patch. :-) However, let point 2 minor weak points for further discussions: a- if the number of committers with access is more or less fixed, then access could be transferred (less active, less time, less motivation, etc.); and b- the bottleneck is the patch review (even if it should be improved in the future with the Guix Data Service). Well, a- is more about human relationship, hard to fix. However, we should work on b- but how? What does it mean "encourage patch review"? Candy or beer at Guix Days? ;-) For example, this patch [1] has fallen in the crack. Or this one [2] or this other one [3]. [1] https://debbugs.gnu.org/cgi/bugreport.cgi?bug=31973 [2] https://debbugs.gnu.org/cgi/bugreport.cgi?bug=33041 [3] https://debbugs.gnu.org/cgi/bugreport.cgi?bug=33318 From the v1.0.1 to now, the repartition of committers which are not the authors: 361 78 65 61 59 54 52 47 44 43 37 21 (x2) 11 9 8 7 (x2) 6 5 (x3) 4 (x2) 3 2 (x3) 1 (x3) which should be compared to the number of commits per author also committer (first 10): 1463 1162 886 670 618 335 204 166 161 150 --8<---------------cut here---------------start------------->8--- # committer and not the author git log v1.0.1..origin/HEAD --pretty=format:"%an~%cn" \ | awk -F '~' '{if ($1 != $2) {++cnt; print "#"$2};}' \ | sort \ | uniq -c \ | sort -nr \ | cut -f1 -d'#' --8<---------------cut here---------------end--------------->8--- --8<---------------cut here---------------start------------->8--- # committer and the author git log v1.0.1..origin/HEAD --pretty=format:"%an~%cn" \ | awk -F '~' '{if ($1 == $2) {++cnt; print "#"$2};}' \ | sort \ | uniq -c \ | sort -nr \ | cut -f1 -d'#' | head -n10 --8<---------------cut here---------------end--------------->8--- It is easy to produce more stats, for the example the author time versus the committer time, or the number of newcomers (first commit), or the hour when committing. Do not take me wrong, it is not about blaming but it is about health and how it could be improved. All these numbers show how Guix is healthy. :-) Well, all this comment is about "2. Encourage patch review for committers.". Patch review is about trust, so what could be done to reduce the workload of "committers"? and smooth everything? Team and/or delegate? Formalize "maintainer per field" (R, Lisp, Python, OCaml, maths, etc.)? Obviously without adding too formal stuff. :-) All the best, simon
Ludovic Courtès <ludo@gnu.org> writes: > Hello! > > Just a heads-up for fellow maintainers (Tobias, Marius, Maxim): could > you send a “+1” or whatever you deem appropriate :-) to this discussion? > I’d like to make sure we’re on the same page. > > https://issues.guix.gnu.org/issue/38846 I've read through the changes and all LGTM. Thanks!
Hello! zimoun <zimon.toutoune@gmail.com> skribis: >>From the v1.0.1 to now, the repartition of committers which are not the authors: > > 361 > 78 > 65 > 61 > 59 > 54 > 52 > 47 > 44 > 43 > 37 > 21 (x2) > 11 > 9 > 8 > 7 (x2) > 6 > 5 (x3) > 4 (x2) > 3 > 2 (x3) > 1 (x3) > > which should be compared to the number of commits per author also > committer (first 10): > > 1463 > 1162 > 886 > 670 > 618 > 335 > 204 > 166 > 161 > 150 I had overlooked that; interesting, though I’m not sure what conclusion(s) to draw. Perhaps we should look at how these numbers evolve over time? Related to that, attached is a script I wrote a while back to view the number of reviews per committer (ah ha!), like so: --8<---------------cut here---------------start------------->8--- scheme@(guile-user)> (define r (reviewers repo)) scheme@(guile-user)> ,pp (sort (map car r) <) $3 = (0 ;; long tail omitted… 1 1 1 1 2 2 2 2 2 4 5 5 6 9 9 9 10 11 13 13 17 18 19 30 37 37 38 40 40 45 48 51 59 63 72 84 85 88 99 181 186 264 287 506 526 1620) --8<---------------cut here---------------end--------------->8--- This is for all-time commits, so not all that representative, but could be used as a starting point for the statistician in you. :-) Ludo’. (use-modules (git) (git repository) (git reference) (git oid) (git tag) (git commit) (git structs) ;signature-email, etc. (srfi srfi-1) (srfi srfi-26) (ice-9 match) (ice-9 vlist)) (define commit-author* (compose signature-name commit-author)) (define commit-committer* (compose signature-name commit-committer)) (define-syntax-rule (false-if-git-error exp) (catch 'git-error (lambda () exp) (const #f))) (define* (fold-commits proc seed repo #:key (start (reference-target (repository-head repo))) end) "Call PROC on each commit of REPO, starting at START (an OID), and until END if specified." (let loop ((commit (commit-lookup repo start)) (result seed)) (let ((parent (false-if-git-error (commit-parent commit)))) (if parent (if (and end (oid=? (commit-id parent) end)) (proc parent result) (loop parent (proc parent result))) result)))) (define (reviewers repo) "Return a list of review count/committer pairs." (define vhash (fold-commits (lambda (commit result) (if (string=? (commit-author* commit) (commit-committer* commit)) result (vhash-cons (commit-committer* commit) #t result))) vlist-null repo)) (define committers (delete-duplicates (fold-commits (lambda (commit result) (cons (commit-committer* commit) result)) '() repo))) (map (lambda (committer) (cons (vhash-fold* (lambda (_ count) (+ 1 count)) 0 committer vhash) committer)) committers)) (define (reviewer< r1 r2) (match r1 ((count1 . name1) (match r2 ((count2 . name2) (< count1 count2)))))) (libgit2-init!) (define repo (repository-open "."))
Hi Ludo, On Thu, 9 Jan 2020 at 23:05, Ludovic Courtès <ludo@gnu.org> wrote: > >>From the v1.0.1 to now, the repartition of committers which are not the authors: > > > > 361 > > 78 > > 65 > > 61 > > 59 > > 54 > > 52 > > 47 > > 44 > > 43 > > 37 > > 21 (x2) > > 11 > > 9 > > 8 > > 7 (x2) > > 6 > > 5 (x3) > > 4 (x2) > > 3 > > 2 (x3) > > 1 (x3) > > > > which should be compared to the number of commits per author also > > committer (first 10): > > > > 1463 > > 1162 > > 886 > > 670 > > 618 > > 335 > > 204 > > 166 > > 161 > > 150 > > I had overlooked that; interesting, though I’m not sure what conclusion(s) > to draw. Perhaps we should look at how these numbers evolve over time? If one re-associates the number of commits as committers to the number of commits as authors, and computes the ratio (in percent and sorted), the result is: 248.00 128.26 105.00 100.00 100.00 67.16 53.61 45.49 42.86 41.60 40.00 28.28 28.13 23.12 23.08 19.40 14.45 10.23 8.57 7.00 6.60 6.25 5.88 5.75 5.75 5.19 3.21 2.63 1.84 1.47 1.31 .73 To be clear, the person with the score of 53.61% "reviews" half as many commits they authors. And the mean is almost 37%. Cool, no? Well, it is not possible to draw an strong conclusion, just a weak one: Guix is healthy. ;-) (For example, the number of commits should be weighted with the number of lines changed.) And yes, it should be interesting to see how evolves the commits rate (as authors, as committers) over the time. > Related to that, attached is a script I wrote a while back to view the > number of reviews per committer (ah ha!), like so: Cool! Maybe this kind of metrics could be reported to the Guix Data Service. Well, let start by play with your script. ;-) > This is for all-time commits, so not all that representative, but could > be used as a starting point for the statistician in you. :-) Héhé! You got me. ;-) Cheers, simon
Hello, zimoun <zimon.toutoune@gmail.com> skribis: > To be clear, the person with the score of 53.61% "reviews" half as > many commits they authors. > > And the mean is almost 37%. Cool, no? > > > Well, it is not possible to draw an strong conclusion, just a weak > one: Guix is healthy. ;-) Oh yes, that’s an interesting (and nice!) conclusion. Thanks, Ludo’.
Hello Guix! Happy new year, merry 12 nivôse, or whatever celebration is appropriate for you! :-) These patches do three things: 1. Move text from ‘HACKING’ to ‘doc/contributing.texi’. 2. Encourage patch review for committers. 3. Add a tentative policy for granting commit access (the last patch of this series). I expect #1 and #2 to be uncontroversial, but I’d like feedback on #3! So far, we’ve been giving commit access in a very ad-hoc fashion. Often it was Ricardo or myself who ended up taking care of that, even though other people have admin rights on Savannah to add/remove members. We briefly discussed it among maintainers after the maintainer collective expanded, and it seems to me that perhaps now is a good time to formalize things a bit—to clarify what contributors may expect and to increase transparency. Hence this proposal of a simple co-optation policy. As you know, Chris Baines has been working towards automated testing of submitted patches. One of the goals is to allow part of the QA to be automated, such that, eventually, approved merges could be automated. In that spirit, we would have an incentive to not add more committers (probably also a good thing security-wise). That’s why I added a note on this topic. What do people think? Thanks, Ludo’. Ludovic Courtès (4): doc: Add "Tracking Bugs and Patches" section. doc: Move "Commit Access" section from 'HACKING' to the manual. doc: Encourage patch review. DRAFT doc: Add a cooption policy for commit access. HACKING | 58 +------------- doc/contributing.texi | 171 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++-- doc/guix.texi | 2 +- 3 files changed, 168 insertions(+), 63 deletions(-)