From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
From: Greg KH <gregkh@linuxfoundation.org>
Subject: Re: [squashfs] Who is responsible for code review?
Date: Fri, 22 Jun 2012 19:52:11 -0700
Message-ID: <20120623025211.GA18260@kroah.com>
References: <1340349302.1986.11.camel@slavad-ubuntu-11>
 <CAFLxGvxhztcWw6jh4VoUvEGymoDC2QEcj3Kr1W65-CLUY49Nng@mail.gmail.com>
 <1340362434.1986.21.camel@slavad-ubuntu-11>
 <CAB3wodfkoXqqvCj-mTMeaMrt1fTs2-+kTNpnkjj=bzpj+4_f+Q@mail.gmail.com>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Cc: Vyacheslav Dubeyko <slava@dubeyko.com>,
	richard -rw- weinberger <richard.weinberger@gmail.com>,
	linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org,
	squashfs-devel@lists.sourceforge.net, Vyacheslav.Dubeyko@huawei.com
To: Phillip Lougher <phillip.lougher@gmail.com>
Return-path: <linux-fsdevel-owner@vger.kernel.org>
Received: from mail-pb0-f46.google.com ([209.85.160.46]:42579 "EHLO
	mail-pb0-f46.google.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org
	with ESMTP id S1756428Ab2FWCwP (ORCPT
	<rfc822;linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org>);
	Fri, 22 Jun 2012 22:52:15 -0400
Received: by mail-pb0-f46.google.com with SMTP id rp8so4292814pbb.19
        for <linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org>; Fri, 22 Jun 2012 19:52:15 -0700 (PDT)
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <CAB3wodfkoXqqvCj-mTMeaMrt1fTs2-+kTNpnkjj=bzpj+4_f+Q@mail.gmail.com>
Sender: linux-fsdevel-owner@vger.kernel.org
List-ID: <linux-fsdevel.vger.kernel.org>

On Sat, Jun 23, 2012 at 03:01:27AM +0100, Phillip Lougher wrote:
> On Fri, Jun 22, 2012 at 11:53 AM, Vyacheslav Dubeyko <slava@dubeyko.com> wrote:
> > Hi,
> >
> >> We have a script to answer such questions.
> >> scripts/get_maintainer.pl
> >>
> > Ok. Thanks. :-)
> >
> > I know that Phillip Lougher is the maintainer of squashfs file system
> > code. But he keeps silence during last time. It was patch from UCHINO
> > Satoshi recently but nobody said YES or NO on it. My question is about
> > such situation.
> >
> 
>  Vyacheslav
> 
> You wrote "but nobody said YES or NO on it", and effectively answered
> your own question.  The silence has been waiting for
> feedback/code-review on these patches from others.
> 
>  The patches in question are adding a new feature to Squashfs.  New
> features are always nice to have, but always carry the risk of
> introducing bugs, performance regressions, and generally making the
> code harder to maintain if (as is the case with these patches)  they
> have been implemented in a way not to my liking.
> 
> I reviewed these patches when they arrived, and I got a poor opinion
> of them.  However, I decided to give the patches a chance, and wait
> and see what feedback/code-review they got.  So far they have received
> nothing.

That's not a good way to do review comments.  If you review them, let
the author know about your poor opinion.  That gives them, and others,
the chance to change your opinion if others feel you are incorrect, or,
if you are correct, it lets the author know they need to change their
code.

Just doing nothing publically doesn't help anyone out here, and only
causes confusion as this thread shows.

I read over these patches a while ago and offered some review, which I
see has been taken into consideration and changes were made.  Please let
us know your opinion so that we can all get something that works for
everyone accepted here.

thanks,

greg k-h