Everyone can contribute to Guix without having commit access (see Enviando patches). However, for frequent contributors, having write access to the repository can be convenient. As a rule of thumb, a contributor should have accumulated fifty (50) reviewed commits to be considered as a committer and have sustained their activity in the project for at least 6 months. This ensures enough interactions with the contributor, which is essential for mentoring and assessing whether they are ready to become a committer. Commit access should not be thought of as a “badge of honor” but rather as a responsibility a contributor is willing to take to help the project.
The following sections explain how to get commit access, how to be ready to push commits, and the policies and community expectations for commits pushed upstream.
When you deem it necessary, consider applying for commit access by following these steps:
Committers are expected to have had some interactions with you as a contributor and to be able to judge whether you are sufficiently familiar with the project’s practices. It is not a judgment on the value of your work, so a refusal should rather be interpreted as “let’s try again later”.
Set up GnuPG such that it never uses the SHA1 hash algorithm for digital signatures, which is known to be unsafe since 2019, for instance by adding the following line to ~/.gnupg/gpg.conf (see GPG Esoteric Options in The GNU Privacy Guard Manual):
Importante: Before you can push for the first time, maintainers must:
- add your OpenPGP key to the
- add your OpenPGP fingerprint to the .guix-authorizations file of the branch(es) you will commit to.
Nota: Maintainers are happy to give commit access to people who have been contributing for some time and have a track record—don’t be shy and don’t underestimate your work!
However, note that the project is working towards a more automated patch review and merging system, which, as a consequence, may lead us to have fewer people with commit access to the main repository. Stay tuned!
All commits that are pushed to the central repository on Savannah must be
signed with an OpenPGP key, and the public key should be uploaded to your
user account on Savannah and to public key servers, such as
keys.openpgp.org. To configure Git to automatically sign commits,
git config commit.gpgsign true # Substitute the fingerprint of your public PGP key. git config user.signingkey CABBA6EA1DC0FF33
To check that commits are signed with correct key, use:
You can prevent yourself from accidentally pushing unsigned or signed with the wrong key commits to Savannah by using the pre-push Git hook located at etc/git/pre-push:
cp etc/git/pre-push .git/hooks/pre-push
It additionally calls
make check-channel-news to be sure
news.scm file is correct.
If you get commit access, please make sure to follow the policy below (discussions of the policy can take place on firstname.lastname@example.org).
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@example.com), so people can
notice. Before pushing your changes, make sure to run
When pushing a commit on behalf of somebody else, please add a
Signed-off-by line at the end of the commit log message—e.g., with
git am --signoff. This improves tracking of who did what.
When adding channel news entries (see Writing Channel News), make sure they are well-formed by running the following command right before pushing:
For anything else, please post to firstname.lastname@example.org and leave time for a review, without committing anything (see Enviando patches). If you didn’t receive any reply after two weeks, and if 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.
Peer review (see Enviando patches) and tools such as
lint (see Invocando
guix lint) and the test suite (see Executando a suíte de testes) 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
guix pull fail or break core functionality, because they break
major packages (at build time or run time), or because they introduce known
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.
In order to reduce the possibility of mistakes, committers will have their Savannah account removed from the Guix Savannah project and their key removed from .guix-authorizations after 12 months of inactivity; they can ask to regain commit access by emailing the maintainers, without going through the vouching process.
Maintainers43 may also revoke an individual’s commit rights, as a last resort, if cooperation with the rest of the community has caused too much friction—even within the bounds of the project’s code of conduct (see Contribuindo). They would only do so after public or private discussion with the individual and a clear notice. Examples of behavior that hinders cooperation and could lead to such a decision include:
When maintainers resort to such a decision, they notify developers on email@example.com; inquiries may be sent to firstname.lastname@example.org. Depending on the situation, the individual may still be welcome to contribute.
One last thing: the project keeps moving forward because committers not only push their own awesome changes, but also offer some of their time reviewing and pushing other people’s changes. As a committer, you’re welcome to use your expertise and commit rights to help other contributors, too!