Am Samstag, dem 09.09.2023 um 21:40 +0200 schrieb Ricardo Wurmus: > > Liliana Marie Prikler <liliana.prik...@gmail.com> writes: > > > > Must we force a single workflow on everyone, even if our track > > > record in reviewing and merging doesn’t clearly show that our way > > > is superior? > > Again, define superior. > > No, I won’t. I think it’s obvious that our review process isn’t > working *well*. So the argument that our current workflow allows for > effective review is dubious. Not saying that you made that claim, > just that it’s hard to convince others of adopting our ways when the > results just aren’t great. What do you consider "the results" here? The rate at which patches are merged? This is hardly an issue our project alone is fighting and I'm not convinced that technology, more or less, will shift it in either direction.
Let's take our importers as an example. Bugs aside, they allow us to bump any package to the newest released version. Naturally, similar tools have evolved over in the forge world as well. The end result? Bots are now writing merge request that end up ignored much like there are bugs in Guix that receive little attention due to what might as well be unfortunate timing. I'm also not sure how we can tie back contribution throughput to cognitive overhead. In fact, there might well be a Jevons paradox hiding somewhere in that less overhead per patch means that more patches can be written, which results in the same overall cognitive overhead in the long run. Now, you are probably right in that our review process probably isn't working well for some value of well that yet needs to be defined. However, without any frame of reference it is also a statement that can neither be verified nor falsified. I could be sitting in a burning house claiming "this is fine" or sitting in the finest restaurant claiming "this place sucks" and since you can't see me, there's no way for you to infer that I'm a cat. Cheers
