Re: bug#61894: [PATCH RFC] Team approval for patches

2023-03-02 Thread 宋文武
Andreas Enge  writes:

> Hello,
>
> in the current situation I think the suggestion is putting the horse before
> the cart. In a first step before adding policy, we should make the teams
> functional.

I find debian have various teams, and each team has a page for packages
status: https://tracker.debian.org/teams/debian-multimedia/

If we want more functional/formol teams, I think we need more tools like
this.



Re: Projects for the Google Summer of Code

2023-03-02 Thread Kyle Andrews


Simon Tournier  writes:

> Hi,
>
>
> On Sun, 26 Feb 2023 at 16:52, Kyle  wrote:
>
>> One idea might be to write a conda importer which looks at the
>> versions of software in the resulting environment and tries to make
>> feasible package variants of make a manifest which matches the
>> existing conda environment as close as possible.
>
> Do you mean, from ’conda env export’ Which outputs something like, 
>
> name: justnumpy
> channels:
>   - defaults
> dependencies:
>   - _libgcc_mutex=0.1=main
>   - _openmp_mutex=5.1=1_gnu
>   - blas=1.0=mkl
>   - libuuid=1.41.5=h5eee18b_0
>   - mkl=2021.4.0=h06a4308_640
>   - mkl-service=2.4.0=py310h7f8727e_0
>   - mkl_fft=1.3.1=py310hd6ae3a3_0
>   - mkl_random=1.2.2=py310h00e6091_0
>   - ncurses=6.3=h5eee18b_3
>   - numpy=1.23.4=py310hd5efca6_0
>   - numpy-base=1.23.4=py310h8e6c178_0
>   - ...
>   - ...
>
> transform this into some Guix manifest.scm?  Well, indeed, it could help
> people for transitioning.

Yes, exactly. Parse the output of this command and generate a bunch of
definitions for a manifest file but which might also be upstreamed to
the guix-past repository.

>> Another idea would be to create a python package for working with Guix
>> more directly from inside their preferred language environment instead
>> of through the shell. I also wouldn't mind it if such a thing existed
>> for R as well.
>
> Do you mean ’guix.install()’ from r-guix-install?
>
> https://cran.rstudio.com/web/packages/guix.install/index.html
>
> How do you install Python packages from the Python REPL?

With the reticulate package in R, a python environment can be readily
instantiated using R code like `use_condaenv`.

https://rstudio.github.io/reticulate/articles/versions.html

In my dreams there would be a `use_guix()` command as well. Of course,
right now that R code is limited to setting up python-specific
environments and conda environments (and installing python packages into
them). However, it still might be valuable to get the name recognition
for Guix in this limited context.

While guix would be responsible for just the python environment in the
context of the reticulate package, that isn't the only possible use
case. It would be nice to write that integration for reticulate by
having them use another R package with deeper integrations built out for
managing guix itself from R. That's why I brought up RcppGuile as a path
for how R could interface directly with the Guix scheme libraries. Such
an interface might be useful for other interactive scientific
environments like python as well. The goal would be to make Guix seem
less exotic to researchers in typical scientific languages. If it's part
of their "home" computing environment, then they might be much more
interested in trying it out. This reflects a bigger scope than just
being a replacement for install.packages.

> Cheers,
> simon
>
> PS:
>
>>  Simon thought often
>> the python version usually didn't matter, but it makes users a lot
>> less woosy to stick with software combinations they have already
>> tested.
>
> This is out of context. :-)  For the context, see [1].

Thanks for the point of clarification. Sorry, I didn't add the reference
in my initial message.

> Well, if you have only one Python version, you only test against this
> one, so being able to combine on the fly the matrix of Python versions
> is not so much important – it is a collective practise inherited from
> the “unstable” Python ecosystem and I am doubtful about its relevancy
> concerning referencing software for reproducing.  Now Conda is more than
> 10 years and very very broadly used, so if its specification using
> version labels and relying on some matrix of Python versions would be
> enough for reproducibility, then I would have never landed in Guix. ;-)
>
> 1: https://yhetil.org/guix/86pma2t3jd@gmail.com
>
> My 2 cents. :-)

Later in that conversation you made the point that the purpose of the
guix-past channel was to make things like this possible. I added my
voice to this (GSOC Project) thread because I thought it would be useful
to place a fresh pair of eyes at tackling the combinatorial
configuration problems which still stand in the way of curating a large
Guix package repository with the breadth of scientific package versions
that a platform like conda provides... even if it cheats a lot by not
doing that reproducibly. Whatever they learn might also help elsewhere
in the project, such as potentially helping to curate large collections
of packages in other languages like those in Go, Rust, or even
JavaScript.



Re: bug#61894: [PATCH RFC] Team approval for patches

2023-03-02 Thread bokr
Hi,
tl;dr:
If you want to expand the list of committers rapidly,
would it make sense to have a sand-box repo for new committers
which trusted committers could channel cherry-picks from?

Pick your bugaboo, but I consider plausible that some
volunteering committers are there on paid job assignment
serving some agenda which you can't easily discover.

Well, that can be good and normal with FLOSS-enlightened emplayers,
but one can imagine not-so-benevolent assignments...
(pick your concept of benevolence :)

On +2023-03-02 12:04:44 +0100, Andreas Enge wrote:
> Hello,
> 
> in the current situation I think the suggestion is putting the horse before
> the cart. In a first step before adding policy, we should make the teams
> functional. While working on core-updates, I have been realising we are
> already spread too thin: Some important languages have teams with one or
> two members, who would effectively become bottlenecks. Other software has
> no team (Qt/KDE). All in all, I also think we have too few committers.
> Adding policy might completely stall the project...
> 
> If for every trivial update of a Python package we need not only submit a
> patch to the bugtracker, wait for QA, get back to the patch, resign it,
> push it and close the bug, but additionally wait for one of the two Python
> team members to have a look at it (or let an additional week pass),
> incentives to participate will tend to zero.
> 
> Your suggested policy can help against commits of too bad quality; but I
> do not think this is our problem, our problem is rather a lack of fast
> progress.
> 
> So I think we need to add committers, add committers to teams, encourage
> teams to engage in work, and if everything works smoothly, maybe add policy.
> 
> Andreas
> 
> 
--
Regards,
Bengt Richter



Re: bug#61894: [PATCH RFC] Team approval for patches

2023-03-02 Thread Andreas Enge
Hello,

in the current situation I think the suggestion is putting the horse before
the cart. In a first step before adding policy, we should make the teams
functional. While working on core-updates, I have been realising we are
already spread too thin: Some important languages have teams with one or
two members, who would effectively become bottlenecks. Other software has
no team (Qt/KDE). All in all, I also think we have too few committers.
Adding policy might completely stall the project...

If for every trivial update of a Python package we need not only submit a
patch to the bugtracker, wait for QA, get back to the patch, resign it,
push it and close the bug, but additionally wait for one of the two Python
team members to have a look at it (or let an additional week pass),
incentives to participate will tend to zero.

Your suggested policy can help against commits of too bad quality; but I
do not think this is our problem, our problem is rather a lack of fast
progress.

So I think we need to add committers, add committers to teams, encourage
teams to engage in work, and if everything works smoothly, maybe add policy.

Andreas