[bug#59513,v2] doc: contributing: Tweak the Commit Policy.

Add more examples of when it can be appropriate to push changes without
review, as I think this can be appropriate in the case of trivial changes (as
mentioned before), but also non-trivial fixes.

No longer suggest pushing simple new packages or package upgrades (that don't
cause lots of rebuilds) without sending to guix-patches. Now there's some
automation for testing changes sent to guix-patches, sending changes there
before pushing can mean that more rigerious testing takes place and help speed
up substitutes becoming available. This is true, even if no human review takes
place.

Only suggest waiting one week for review for simpler changes, wait two weeks
for more significant changes.

Also, reorder some of the information in this section so it's grouped together
better.

* doc/contributing.texi (Commit Policy): Tweak.
---
 doc/contributing.texi | 41 ++++++++++++++++++-----------------------
 1 file changed, 18 insertions(+), 23 deletions(-)

Am Donnerstag, dem 08.12.2022 um 11:20 +0000 schrieb Christopher
Baines:
> Add more examples of when it can be appropriate to push changes
> without
> review, as I think this can be appropriate in the case of trivial
> changes (as
> mentioned before), but also non-trivial fixes.
> 
> No longer suggest pushing simple new packages or package upgrades
> (that don't cause lots of rebuilds) without sending to guix-patches.
> Now there's some automation for testing changes sent to guix-patches,
> sending changes there before pushing can mean that more rigerious
rigorous
> testing takes place and help speed up substitutes becoming available.
> This is true, even if no human review takes place.
> 
> Only suggest waiting one week for review for simpler changes, wait
> two weeks
> for more significant changes.
> 
> Also, reorder some of the information in this section so it's grouped
> together
> better.
> 
> * doc/contributing.texi (Commit Policy): Tweak.
> ---
>  doc/contributing.texi | 41 ++++++++++++++++++-----------------------
>  1 file changed, 18 insertions(+), 23 deletions(-)
> 
> diff --git a/doc/contributing.texi b/doc/contributing.texi
> index 6a8ffd6524..d2e7abba98 100644
> --- a/doc/contributing.texi
> +++ b/doc/contributing.texi
> @@ -1824,23 +1824,26 @@ It additionally calls @code{make check-
> channel-news} to be sure
>  
>  @subsection Commit Policy
>  
> -If you get commit access, please make sure to follow
> -the policy below (discussions of the policy can take place on
> +If you get commit access, please make sure to follow the policy
> below
> +(discussions of the policy can take place on
>  @email{guix-devel@@gnu.org}).
>  
> -Non-trivial patches should always be posted to
> -@email{guix-patches@@gnu.org} (trivial patches include fixing typos,
> -etc.).  This mailing list fills the patch-tracking database
> -(@pxref{Tracking Bugs and Patches}).
> -
> -For patches that just add a new package, and a simple one, it's OK
> to
> -commit, if you're confident (which means you successfully built it
> in a
> -chroot setup, and have done a reasonable copyright and license
> -auditing).  Likewise for package upgrades, except upgrades that
> trigger
> -a lot of rebuilds (for example, upgrading GnuTLS or GLib).  We have
> a
> -mailing list for commit notifications (@email{guix-
> commits@@gnu.org}),
> -so people can notice.  Before pushing your changes, make sure to run
> -@code{git pull --rebase}.
> +Changes should be posted to @email{guix-patches@@gnu.org}.  This
> mailing
> +list fills the patch-tracking database (@pxref{Tracking Bugs and
> +Patches}).  It also allows patches to be picked up and tested by the
> +quality assurance tooling; the result of that testing eventually
> shows
> +up on the dashboard at
> +@indicateurl{https://qa.guix.gnu.org/issue/@var{number}}, where
> +@var{number} is the number assigned by the issue tracker.  Leave
> time
> +for a review, without committing anything (@pxref{Submitting
> Patches}).
> +If you didn’t receive any reply after one week (two weeks for more
> +significant changes), and if you're confident, it's OK to commit.
I would reword that so 
  (not significant ∧ confident ∧ qa_green) → good after 1 week
whereas
  (not significant ∧ confident ∧ qa_unknown) → good after 2 weeks
and significant changes should anyway take 2 weeks.


Cheers

Liliana Marie Prikler <liliana.prikler@gmail.com> writes:

> Am Donnerstag, dem 08.12.2022 um 11:20 +0000 schrieb Christopher
> Baines:
>> Add more examples of when it can be appropriate to push changes
>> without
>> review, as I think this can be appropriate in the case of trivial
>> changes (as
>> mentioned before), but also non-trivial fixes.
>>
>> No longer suggest pushing simple new packages or package upgrades
>> (that don't cause lots of rebuilds) without sending to guix-patches.
>> Now there's some automation for testing changes sent to guix-patches,
>> sending changes there before pushing can mean that more rigerious
>
> rigorous

Thanks, I've fixed that locally now.

>> testing takes place and help speed up substitutes becoming available.
>> This is true, even if no human review takes place.
>>
>> Only suggest waiting one week for review for simpler changes, wait
>> two weeks
>> for more significant changes.
>>
>> Also, reorder some of the information in this section so it's grouped
>> together
>> better.
>>
>> * doc/contributing.texi (Commit Policy): Tweak.
>> ---
>>  doc/contributing.texi | 41 ++++++++++++++++++-----------------------
>>  1 file changed, 18 insertions(+), 23 deletions(-)
>>
>> diff --git a/doc/contributing.texi b/doc/contributing.texi
>> index 6a8ffd6524..d2e7abba98 100644
>> --- a/doc/contributing.texi
>> +++ b/doc/contributing.texi
>> @@ -1824,23 +1824,26 @@ It additionally calls @code{make check-
>> channel-news} to be sure
>>
>>  @subsection Commit Policy
>>
>> -If you get commit access, please make sure to follow
>> -the policy below (discussions of the policy can take place on
>> +If you get commit access, please make sure to follow the policy
>> below
>> +(discussions of the policy can take place on
>>  @email{guix-devel@@gnu.org}).
>>
>> -Non-trivial patches should always be posted to
>> -@email{guix-patches@@gnu.org} (trivial patches include fixing typos,
>> -etc.).  This mailing list fills the patch-tracking database
>> -(@pxref{Tracking Bugs and Patches}).
>> -
>> -For patches that just add a new package, and a simple one, it's OK
>> to
>> -commit, if you're confident (which means you successfully built it
>> in a
>> -chroot setup, and have done a reasonable copyright and license
>> -auditing).  Likewise for package upgrades, except upgrades that
>> trigger
>> -a lot of rebuilds (for example, upgrading GnuTLS or GLib).  We have
>> a
>> -mailing list for commit notifications (@email{guix-
>> commits@@gnu.org}),
>> -so people can notice.  Before pushing your changes, make sure to run
>> -@code{git pull --rebase}.
>> +Changes should be posted to @email{guix-patches@@gnu.org}.  This
>> mailing
>> +list fills the patch-tracking database (@pxref{Tracking Bugs and
>> +Patches}).  It also allows patches to be picked up and tested by the
>> +quality assurance tooling; the result of that testing eventually
>> shows
>> +up on the dashboard at
>> +@indicateurl{https://qa.guix.gnu.org/issue/@var{number}}, where
>> +@var{number} is the number assigned by the issue tracker.  Leave
>> time
>> +for a review, without committing anything (@pxref{Submitting
>> Patches}).
>> +If you didn’t receive any reply after one week (two weeks for more
>> +significant changes), and if you're confident, it's OK to commit.
>
> I would reword that so
>   (not significant ∧ confident ∧ qa_green) → good after 1 week
> whereas
>   (not significant ∧ confident ∧ qa_unknown) → good after 2 weeks
> and significant changes should anyway take 2 weeks.

While I like the intent here, for the moment I prefer a simpler
policy. Maybe we can move in this direction when the QA tooling is more
usable and reliable.

Thanks,

Chris

Am Montag, dem 12.12.2022 um 10:49 +0000 schrieb Christopher Baines:
> 
> Liliana Marie Prikler <liliana.prikler@gmail.com> writes:
> 
> > Am Donnerstag, dem 08.12.2022 um 11:20 +0000 schrieb Christopher
> > Baines:
> > > Add more examples of when it can be appropriate to push changes
> > > without
> > > review, as I think this can be appropriate in the case of trivial
> > > changes (as
> > > mentioned before), but also non-trivial fixes.
> > > 
> > > No longer suggest pushing simple new packages or package upgrades
> > > (that don't cause lots of rebuilds) without sending to guix-
> > > patches.
> > > Now there's some automation for testing changes sent to guix-
> > > patches,
> > > sending changes there before pushing can mean that more rigerious
> > 
> > rigorous
> 
> Thanks, I've fixed that locally now.
> 
> > > testing takes place and help speed up substitutes becoming
> > > available.
> > > This is true, even if no human review takes place.
> > > 
> > > Only suggest waiting one week for review for simpler changes,
> > > wait
> > > two weeks
> > > for more significant changes.
> > > 
> > > Also, reorder some of the information in this section so it's
> > > grouped
> > > together
> > > better.
> > > 
> > > * doc/contributing.texi (Commit Policy): Tweak.
> > > ---
> > >  doc/contributing.texi | 41 ++++++++++++++++++-------------------
> > > ----
> > >  1 file changed, 18 insertions(+), 23 deletions(-)
> > > 
> > > diff --git a/doc/contributing.texi b/doc/contributing.texi
> > > index 6a8ffd6524..d2e7abba98 100644
> > > --- a/doc/contributing.texi
> > > +++ b/doc/contributing.texi
> > > @@ -1824,23 +1824,26 @@ It additionally calls @code{make check-
> > > channel-news} to be sure
> > > 
> > >  @subsection Commit Policy
> > > 
> > > -If you get commit access, please make sure to follow
> > > -the policy below (discussions of the policy can take place on
> > > +If you get commit access, please make sure to follow the policy
> > > below
> > > +(discussions of the policy can take place on
> > >  @email{guix-devel@@gnu.org}).
> > > 
> > > -Non-trivial patches should always be posted to
> > > -@email{guix-patches@@gnu.org} (trivial patches include fixing
> > > typos,
> > > -etc.).  This mailing list fills the patch-tracking database
> > > -(@pxref{Tracking Bugs and Patches}).
> > > -
> > > -For patches that just add a new package, and a simple one, it's
> > > OK
> > > to
> > > -commit, if you're confident (which means you successfully built
> > > it
> > > in a
> > > -chroot setup, and have done a reasonable copyright and license
> > > -auditing).  Likewise for package upgrades, except upgrades that
> > > trigger
> > > -a lot of rebuilds (for example, upgrading GnuTLS or GLib).  We
> > > have
> > > a
> > > -mailing list for commit notifications (@email{guix-
> > > commits@@gnu.org}),
> > > -so people can notice.  Before pushing your changes, make sure to
> > > run
> > > -@code{git pull --rebase}.
> > > +Changes should be posted to @email{guix-patches@@gnu.org}.  This
> > > mailing
> > > +list fills the patch-tracking database (@pxref{Tracking Bugs and
> > > +Patches}).  It also allows patches to be picked up and tested by
> > > the
> > > +quality assurance tooling; the result of that testing eventually
> > > shows
> > > +up on the dashboard at
> > > +@indicateurl{https://qa.guix.gnu.org/issue/@var{number}}, where
> > > +@var{number} is the number assigned by the issue tracker.  Leave
> > > time
> > > +for a review, without committing anything (@pxref{Submitting
> > > Patches}).
> > > +If you didn’t receive any reply after one week (two weeks for
> > > more
> > > +significant changes), and if you're confident, it's OK to
> > > commit.
> > 
> > I would reword that so
> >   (not significant ∧ confident ∧ qa_green) → good after 1 week
> > whereas
> >   (not significant ∧ confident ∧ qa_unknown) → good after 2 weeks
> > and significant changes should anyway take 2 weeks.
> 
> While I like the intent here, for the moment I prefer a simpler
> policy. Maybe we can move in this direction when the QA tooling is
> more usable and reliable.
I wrote this partly with the intent of resolving an ambiguity, but I
agree on the principle of having a simple policy.  I take it that QA
status is not that important at the moment – more that QA knows about
the patch and has already started building packages?

Cheers

Liliana Marie Prikler <liliana.prikler@gmail.com> writes:

>> > > +Changes should be posted to @email{guix-patches@@gnu.org}.  This
>> > > mailing
>> > > +list fills the patch-tracking database (@pxref{Tracking Bugs and
>> > > +Patches}).  It also allows patches to be picked up and tested by
>> > > the
>> > > +quality assurance tooling; the result of that testing eventually
>> > > shows
>> > > +up on the dashboard at
>> > > +@indicateurl{https://qa.guix.gnu.org/issue/@var{number}}, where
>> > > +@var{number} is the number assigned by the issue tracker.  Leave
>> > > time
>> > > +for a review, without committing anything (@pxref{Submitting
>> > > Patches}).
>> > > +If you didn’t receive any reply after one week (two weeks for
>> > > more
>> > > +significant changes), and if you're confident, it's OK to
>> > > commit.
>> >
>> > I would reword that so
>> >   (not significant ∧ confident ∧ qa_green) → good after 1 week
>> > whereas
>> >   (not significant ∧ confident ∧ qa_unknown) → good after 2 weeks
>> > and significant changes should anyway take 2 weeks.
>>
>> While I like the intent here, for the moment I prefer a simpler
>> policy. Maybe we can move in this direction when the QA tooling is
>> more usable and reliable.
>
> I wrote this partly with the intent of resolving an ambiguity, but I
> agree on the principle of having a simple policy.  I take it that QA
> status is not that important at the moment – more that QA knows about
> the patch and has already started building packages?

I don't think the QA stuff happening is important enough make some
requirements of it in the policy (yet), but, as you say, there are still
benefits right now with submitting patches to guix-patches, and that's
what I'm going for here.

On 2022-12-08, Christopher Baines wrote:
> Only suggest waiting one week for review for simpler changes, wait two weeks
> for more significant changes.
...
> +Changes should be posted to @email{guix-patches@@gnu.org}.  This mailing
> +list fills the patch-tracking database (@pxref{Tracking Bugs and
> +Patches}).  It also allows patches to be picked up and tested by the
> +quality assurance tooling; the result of that testing eventually shows
> +up on the dashboard at
> +@indicateurl{https://qa.guix.gnu.org/issue/@var{number}}, where
> +@var{number} is the number assigned by the issue tracker.  Leave time
> +for a review, without committing anything (@pxref{Submitting Patches}).
> +If you didn’t receive any reply after one week (two weeks for more
> +significant changes), and if you're confident, it's OK to commit.

My one concern here for things that I tend to work on is
diffoscope... it has such a large dependency graph(?) because it
supports so many file formats, it pulls in quite a lot for the test
suites...

In a week or two of changes between submission and being able to push to
master, I'd worry that you could end up with a diffoscope that wouldn't
build because of changes to one of it's (native-)inputs or whatnot
because of changes to master in the previous week...


That said, overall, I think sending everything through guix-patches is a
good change, even if my lazier self pouts a little at having to deal
with more process for seemingly simple things. :)


live well,
  vagrant

Vagrant Cascadian <vagrant@debian.org> writes:

> [[PGP Signed Part:Undecided]]
> On 2022-12-08, Christopher Baines wrote:
>> Only suggest waiting one week for review for simpler changes, wait two weeks
>> for more significant changes.
> ...
>> +Changes should be posted to @email{guix-patches@@gnu.org}.  This mailing
>> +list fills the patch-tracking database (@pxref{Tracking Bugs and
>> +Patches}).  It also allows patches to be picked up and tested by the
>> +quality assurance tooling; the result of that testing eventually shows
>> +up on the dashboard at
>> +@indicateurl{https://qa.guix.gnu.org/issue/@var{number}}, where
>> +@var{number} is the number assigned by the issue tracker.  Leave time
>> +for a review, without committing anything (@pxref{Submitting Patches}).
>> +If you didn’t receive any reply after one week (two weeks for more
>> +significant changes), and if you're confident, it's OK to commit.
>
> My one concern here for things that I tend to work on is
> diffoscope... it has such a large dependency graph(?) because it
> supports so many file formats, it pulls in quite a lot for the test
> suites...
>
> In a week or two of changes between submission and being able to push to
> master, I'd worry that you could end up with a diffoscope that wouldn't
> build because of changes to one of it's (native-)inputs or whatnot
> because of changes to master in the previous week...
>
>
> That said, overall, I think sending everything through guix-patches is a
> good change, even if my lazier self pouts a little at having to deal
> with more process for seemingly simple things. :)

I think that's a valid concern. The QA tooling is affected similarly, in
that it tests against the latest processed revision when the patch is
picked up, but things could change in between the testing happening and
it being merged.

Remember that these time periods are only when no review takes place. My
hope is that manual review can happen sooner than one or two weeks after
patch submission, therefore enabling making changes more quickly.

Thanks,

Chris

Hi Christopher,

Christopher Baines <mail@cbaines.net> writes:

[...]

> * doc/contributing.texi (Commit Policy): Tweak.
> ---
>  doc/contributing.texi | 41 ++++++++++++++++++-----------------------
>  1 file changed, 18 insertions(+), 23 deletions(-)
>
> diff --git a/doc/contributing.texi b/doc/contributing.texi
> index 6a8ffd6524..d2e7abba98 100644
> --- a/doc/contributing.texi
> +++ b/doc/contributing.texi
> @@ -1824,23 +1824,26 @@ It additionally calls @code{make check-channel-news} to be sure
>  
>  @subsection Commit Policy
>  
> -If you get commit access, please make sure to follow
> -the policy below (discussions of the policy can take place on
> +If you get commit access, please make sure to follow the policy below
> +(discussions of the policy can take place on
>  @email{guix-devel@@gnu.org}).
>  
> -Non-trivial patches should always be posted to
> -@email{guix-patches@@gnu.org} (trivial patches include fixing typos,
> -etc.).  This mailing list fills the patch-tracking database
> -(@pxref{Tracking Bugs and Patches}).
> -
> -For patches that just add a new package, and a simple one, it's OK to
> -commit, if you're confident (which means you successfully built it in a
> -chroot setup, and have done a reasonable copyright and license
> -auditing).  Likewise for package upgrades, except upgrades that trigger
> -a lot of rebuilds (for example, upgrading GnuTLS or GLib).  We have a
> -mailing list for commit notifications (@email{guix-commits@@gnu.org}),
> -so people can notice.  Before pushing your changes, make sure to run
> -@code{git pull --rebase}.
> +Changes should be posted to @email{guix-patches@@gnu.org}.  This mailing
> +list fills the patch-tracking database (@pxref{Tracking Bugs and
> +Patches}).  It also allows patches to be picked up and tested by the
> +quality assurance tooling; the result of that testing eventually shows
> +up on the dashboard at
> +@indicateurl{https://qa.guix.gnu.org/issue/@var{number}}, where
> +@var{number} is the number assigned by the issue tracker.  Leave time
> +for a review, without committing anything (@pxref{Submitting Patches}).
> +If you didn’t receive any reply after one week (two weeks for more
> +significant changes), and if you're confident, it's OK to commit.
> +
> +As an exception, some changes considered ``trivial'' or ``obvious'' may
> +be pushed directly.  This includes changes to fix typos and reverting
> +commits that caused immediate problems.  This is subject to being
> +adjusted, allowing individuals to commit directly on non-controversial
> +changes on parts they’re familiar with.

Like others, I like the direction of the change; the focus is changed
from "trivial patches are OK to push else wait 2 weeks" to "most changes
must go through the QA tooling", which should improve quality.  Like
Vagrant, I think it adds some friction, especially if the QA is still
sometimes still unreliable and doesn't provide clear results (false
positives for example), but I'm not against trying it.

I guess we can try this new process, and adjust as we go (or revert to
the current policy) in case something doesn't work well enough.

Howdy,

Vagrant Cascadian <vagrant@debian.org> skribis:

> On 2022-12-08, Christopher Baines wrote:
>> Only suggest waiting one week for review for simpler changes, wait two weeks
>> for more significant changes.
> ...
>> +Changes should be posted to @email{guix-patches@@gnu.org}.  This mailing
>> +list fills the patch-tracking database (@pxref{Tracking Bugs and
>> +Patches}).  It also allows patches to be picked up and tested by the
>> +quality assurance tooling; the result of that testing eventually shows
>> +up on the dashboard at
>> +@indicateurl{https://qa.guix.gnu.org/issue/@var{number}}, where
>> +@var{number} is the number assigned by the issue tracker.  Leave time
>> +for a review, without committing anything (@pxref{Submitting Patches}).
>> +If you didn’t receive any reply after one week (two weeks for more
>> +significant changes), and if you're confident, it's OK to commit.
>
> My one concern here for things that I tend to work on is
> diffoscope... it has such a large dependency graph(?) because it
> supports so many file formats, it pulls in quite a lot for the test
> suites...
>
> In a week or two of changes between submission and being able to push to
> master, I'd worry that you could end up with a diffoscope that wouldn't
> build because of changes to one of it's (native-)inputs or whatnot
> because of changes to master in the previous week...

I suppose there’s always this risk.  Ideally, qa.guix would either
rebuild things periodically (rebasing them) or could be told to.

> That said, overall, I think sending everything through guix-patches is a
> good change, even if my lazier self pouts a little at having to deal
> with more process for seemingly simple things. :)

Right, I can sympathize.  :-)  I’ve done my share of direct pushes for
“simple thing”, but I think there’s now evidence that sometimes simple
things aren’t that simple.

Waiting for a green flag from qa.guix and/or from fellow hackers might
seem annoying at first, but the gains in terms of peace of mind, smooth
collaboration, and overall stability are worth it.

Ludo’.

Hi,

On Thu, 08 Dec 2022 at 11:20, Christopher Baines <mail@cbaines.net> wrote:

> Add more examples of when it can be appropriate to push changes without
> review, as I think this can be appropriate in the case of trivial changes (as
> mentioned before), but also non-trivial fixes.

This would be part of the commit message, right?

I would avoid the personal “I think” since it is a collective thought
with some consensus (I guess).  For instance,

--8<---------------cut here---------------start------------->8---
Add more examples of when it can be appropriate to push changes without
review, as in the case of trivial changes (as mentioned before), but
also non-trivial fixes.
--8<---------------cut here---------------end--------------->8---


> No longer suggest pushing simple new packages or package upgrades (that don't
> cause lots of rebuilds) without sending to guix-patches. Now there's some
> automation for testing changes sent to guix-patches, sending changes there
> before pushing can mean that more rigerious testing takes place and help speed
                                  --^
                              typo
s/rigerious/rigorous
                             

> +Changes should be posted to @email{guix-patches@@gnu.org}.  This mailing
> +list fills the patch-tracking database (@pxref{Tracking Bugs and
> +Patches}).  It also allows patches to be picked up and tested by the
> +quality assurance tooling; the result of that testing eventually shows
> +up on the dashboard at
> +@indicateurl{https://qa.guix.gnu.org/issue/@var{number}}, where
> +@var{number} is the number assigned by the issue tracker.  Leave time

To be consistent with (guix) Sending a Patch Series [1], I suggest to
use @var{ISSUE_NUMBER} instead of simply @var{number}.

1: <https://guix.gnu.org/manual/devel/en/guix.html#Sending-a-Patch-Series>



Aside the minor comments, all LGTM!  This change appears to me a great
improvement, hoping it will reduce the number of red bullets in
dashboard [2].

2: <https://ci.guix.gnu.org/eval/91795/dashboard>


Cheers,
simon

zimoun <zimon.toutoune@gmail.com> writes:

> Hi,
>
> On Thu, 08 Dec 2022 at 11:20, Christopher Baines <mail@cbaines.net> wrote:
>
>> Add more examples of when it can be appropriate to push changes without
>> review, as I think this can be appropriate in the case of trivial changes (as
>> mentioned before), but also non-trivial fixes.
>
> This would be part of the commit message, right?

Yeah, this is the commit message.

> I would avoid the personal “I think” since it is a collective thought
> with some consensus (I guess).  For instance,
>
> Add more examples of when it can be appropriate to push changes without
> review, as in the case of trivial changes (as mentioned before), but
> also non-trivial fixes.

It reads better to me with the "I think", and since it's my name on the
commit, I've left it as is.

>> No longer suggest pushing simple new packages or package upgrades (that don't
>> cause lots of rebuilds) without sending to guix-patches. Now there's some
>> automation for testing changes sent to guix-patches, sending changes there
>> before pushing can mean that more rigerious testing takes place and help speed
>                                   --^
>                               typo
> s/rigerious/rigorous

Thanks, I've fixed this.

>> +Changes should be posted to @email{guix-patches@@gnu.org}.  This mailing
>> +list fills the patch-tracking database (@pxref{Tracking Bugs and
>> +Patches}).  It also allows patches to be picked up and tested by the
>> +quality assurance tooling; the result of that testing eventually shows
>> +up on the dashboard at
>> +@indicateurl{https://qa.guix.gnu.org/issue/@var{number}}, where
>> +@var{number} is the number assigned by the issue tracker.  Leave time
>
> To be consistent with (guix) Sending a Patch Series [1], I suggest to
> use @var{ISSUE_NUMBER} instead of simply @var{number}.
>
> 1: <https://guix.gnu.org/manual/devel/en/guix.html#Sending-a-Patch-Series>

Sure, I've made this change.

Christopher Baines <mail@cbaines.net> writes:

> Add more examples of when it can be appropriate to push changes without
> review, as I think this can be appropriate in the case of trivial changes (as
> mentioned before), but also non-trivial fixes.
>
> No longer suggest pushing simple new packages or package upgrades (that don't
> cause lots of rebuilds) without sending to guix-patches. Now there's some
> automation for testing changes sent to guix-patches, sending changes there
> before pushing can mean that more rigerious testing takes place and help speed
> up substitutes becoming available. This is true, even if no human review takes
> place.
>
> Only suggest waiting one week for review for simpler changes, wait two weeks
> for more significant changes.
>
> Also, reorder some of the information in this section so it's grouped together
> better.
>
> * doc/contributing.texi (Commit Policy): Tweak.
> ---
>  doc/contributing.texi | 41 ++++++++++++++++++-----------------------
>  1 file changed, 18 insertions(+), 23 deletions(-)

I've now pushed this to master as
9aa2b7419854306b7ae78d4c4f7684316b834b1d, with some final tweaks.

Thanks everyone for taking a look.

Chris