From patchwork Sun Jun 13 10:15:36 2021 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8" MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-Patchwork-Submitter: =?utf-8?q?Ludovic_Court=C3=A8s?= X-Patchwork-Id: 30210 Return-Path: X-Original-To: patchwork@mira.cbaines.net Delivered-To: patchwork@mira.cbaines.net Received: by mira.cbaines.net (Postfix, from userid 113) id 00FE827BC81; Sun, 13 Jun 2021 11:16:11 +0100 (BST) X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.2 (2018-09-13) on mira.cbaines.net X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.9 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,MAILING_LIST_MULTI, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H4,RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_WL,SPF_HELO_PASS,URIBL_BLOCKED autolearn=unavailable autolearn_force=no version=3.4.2 Received: from lists.gnu.org (lists.gnu.org [209.51.188.17]) by mira.cbaines.net (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 9589E27BC78 for ; Sun, 13 Jun 2021 11:16:11 +0100 (BST) Received: from localhost ([::1]:49626 helo=lists1p.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1lsNA2-0000x1-Iq for patchwork@mira.cbaines.net; Sun, 13 Jun 2021 06:16:10 -0400 Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([2001:470:142:3::10]:39658) by lists.gnu.org with esmtps (TLS1.2:ECDHE_RSA_AES_256_GCM_SHA384:256) (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1lsN9w-0000w1-6M for guix-patches@gnu.org; Sun, 13 Jun 2021 06:16:04 -0400 Received: from debbugs.gnu.org ([209.51.188.43]:59385) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtps (TLS1.2:ECDHE_RSA_AES_128_GCM_SHA256:128) (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1lsN9v-0002CP-Ug for guix-patches@gnu.org; Sun, 13 Jun 2021 06:16:03 -0400 Received: from Debian-debbugs by debbugs.gnu.org with local (Exim 4.84_2) (envelope-from ) id 1lsN9v-0002kQ-Rf for guix-patches@gnu.org; Sun, 13 Jun 2021 06:16:03 -0400 X-Loop: help-debbugs@gnu.org Subject: [bug#48696] [PATCH v2 2/4] doc: Add "Addressing Issues" section. Resent-From: Ludovic =?utf-8?q?Court=C3=A8s?= Original-Sender: "Debbugs-submit" Resent-CC: guix-patches@gnu.org Resent-Date: Sun, 13 Jun 2021 10:16:03 +0000 Resent-Message-ID: Resent-Sender: help-debbugs@gnu.org X-GNU-PR-Message: followup 48696 X-GNU-PR-Package: guix-patches X-GNU-PR-Keywords: patch To: 48696@debbugs.gnu.org Cc: Ludovic =?utf-8?q?Court=C3=A8s?= , Christopher Baines Received: via spool by 48696-submit@debbugs.gnu.org id=B48696.16235793559989 (code B ref 48696); Sun, 13 Jun 2021 10:16:03 +0000 Received: (at 48696) by debbugs.gnu.org; 13 Jun 2021 10:15:55 +0000 Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1]:42690 helo=debbugs.gnu.org) by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.84_2) (envelope-from ) id 1lsN9m-0002aY-Fe for submit@debbugs.gnu.org; Sun, 13 Jun 2021 06:15:54 -0400 Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([209.51.188.92]:41852) by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.84_2) (envelope-from ) id 1lsN9j-0002SL-0B for 48696@debbugs.gnu.org; Sun, 13 Jun 2021 06:15:51 -0400 Received: from fencepost.gnu.org ([2001:470:142:3::e]:38712) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1lsN9d-0001vG-Hf; Sun, 13 Jun 2021 06:15:45 -0400 Received: from [2a01:e0a:1d:7270:af76:b9b:ca24:c465] (port=55286 helo=gnu.org) by fencepost.gnu.org with esmtpsa (TLS1.2:ECDHE_RSA_AES_128_GCM_SHA256:128) (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1lsN9d-0002w0-AL; Sun, 13 Jun 2021 06:15:45 -0400 From: Ludovic =?utf-8?q?Court=C3=A8s?= Date: Sun, 13 Jun 2021 12:15:36 +0200 Message-Id: <20210613101538.10668-3-ludo@gnu.org> X-Mailer: git-send-email 2.32.0 In-Reply-To: <20210613101538.10668-1-ludo@gnu.org> References: <87lf7g7azx.fsf@gnu.org> <20210613101538.10668-1-ludo@gnu.org> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-BeenThere: debbugs-submit@debbugs.gnu.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.18 Precedence: list X-BeenThere: guix-patches@gnu.org List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Errors-To: guix-patches-bounces+patchwork=mira.cbaines.net@gnu.org Sender: "Guix-patches" X-getmail-retrieved-from-mailbox: Patches * doc/contributing.texi (Addressing Mistakes): New section. Co-authored-by: Christopher Baines --- doc/contributing.texi | 39 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ 1 file changed, 39 insertions(+) diff --git a/doc/contributing.texi b/doc/contributing.texi index 4ab489173b..00962be11e 100644 --- a/doc/contributing.texi +++ b/doc/contributing.texi @@ -1419,6 +1419,45 @@ you're confident, it's OK to commit. That last part is subject to being adjusted, allowing individuals to commit directly on non-controversial changes on parts they’re familiar with. +@subsection Addressing Issues + +Peer review (@pxref{Submitting Patches}) and tools such as +@command{guix lint} (@pxref{Invoking guix lint}) and the test suite +(@pxref{Running the Test Suite}) should catch issues before they are +pushed. Yet, commits that ``break'' functionality might occasionally +go through. When that happens, there are two priorities: mitigating +the impact, and understanding what happened to reduce the chance of +similar incidents in the future. The responsibility for both these +things primarily lies with those involved, but like everything this is +a group effort. + +Some issues can directly affect all users---for instance because they +make @command{guix pull} fail or break core functionality, because they +break major packages (at build time or run time), or because they +introduce known security vulnerabilities. + +@cindex reverting commits +The people involved in authoring, reviewing, and pushing such +commit(s) should be at the forefront to mitigate their impact in a +timely fashion: by pushing a followup commit to fix it (if possible), +or by reverting it to leave time to come up with a proper fix, and by +communicating with other developers about the problem. + +If these persons are unavailable to address the issue in time, other +committers are entitled to revert the commit(s), explaining in the +commit log and on the mailing list what the problem was, with the goal +of leaving time to the original committer, reviewer(s), and author(s) +to propose a way forward. + +Once the problem has been dealt with, it is the responsibility of +those involved to make sure the situation is understood. If you are +working to understand what happened, focus on gathering information +and avoid assigning any blame. Do ask those involved to describe what +happened, do not ask them to explain the situation---this would +implicitly blame them, which is unhelpful. Accountability comes from +a consensus about the problem, learning from it and improving +processes so that it's less likely to reoccur. + @subsection Commit Revocation In order to reduce the possibility of mistakes, committers will have