From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from list by lists.gnu.org with archive (Exim 4.71) id 1ZXaHO-0008Nq-Qv for mharc-grub-devel@gnu.org; Thu, 03 Sep 2015 15:34:38 -0400 Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([2001:4830:134:3::10]:60530) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1ZXaHM-0008N9-9s for grub-devel@gnu.org; Thu, 03 Sep 2015 15:34:37 -0400 Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1ZXaHJ-00030W-4H for grub-devel@gnu.org; Thu, 03 Sep 2015 15:34:36 -0400 Received: from aserp1040.oracle.com ([141.146.126.69]:48599) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1ZXaHI-00030D-Ts for grub-devel@gnu.org; Thu, 03 Sep 2015 15:34:33 -0400 Received: from aserv0022.oracle.com (aserv0022.oracle.com [141.146.126.234]) by aserp1040.oracle.com (Sentrion-MTA-4.3.2/Sentrion-MTA-4.3.2) with ESMTP id t83JYV8M012518 (version=TLSv1 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=OK) for ; Thu, 3 Sep 2015 19:34:31 GMT Received: from userv0121.oracle.com (userv0121.oracle.com [156.151.31.72]) by aserv0022.oracle.com (8.13.8/8.13.8) with ESMTP id t83JYUhn013836 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=FAIL) for ; Thu, 3 Sep 2015 19:34:31 GMT Received: from abhmp0002.oracle.com (abhmp0002.oracle.com [141.146.116.8]) by userv0121.oracle.com (8.13.8/8.13.8) with ESMTP id t83JYUL1010519 for ; Thu, 3 Sep 2015 19:34:30 GMT Received: from l.oracle.com (/10.137.176.158) by default (Oracle Beehive Gateway v4.0) with ESMTP ; Thu, 03 Sep 2015 12:34:30 -0700 Received: by l.oracle.com (Postfix, from userid 1000) id 5F6366A4B89; Thu, 3 Sep 2015 15:34:29 -0400 (EDT) Date: Thu, 3 Sep 2015 15:34:29 -0400 From: Konrad Rzeszutek Wilk To: grub-devel@gnu.org Subject: Development practices? Message-ID: <20150903193429.GA19514@l.oracle.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.23 (2014-03-12) X-Source-IP: aserv0022.oracle.com [141.146.126.234] X-detected-operating-system: by eggs.gnu.org: GNU/Linux 2.4.x-2.6.x [generic] X-Received-From: 141.146.126.69 X-BeenThere: grub-devel@gnu.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.14 Precedence: list Reply-To: The development of GNU GRUB List-Id: The development of GNU GRUB List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 03 Sep 2015 19:34:37 -0000 Hey, I've noticed a couple of things that the community seems to be doing different than other open source projects and was wondering why? And also how to conform to this (or perhaps it is time to change?) so that ideas/releases/patches can move forward. - Patches are not posted by committers. I see some patches that appear out of nowhere in the grub source code but they don't seem to be posted on the mailing list? Is that because there hadn't been enough reviewers on the mailing list? Which brings another question: - Some patches have been posted and hadn't much any architecture feedback or review. I am referring to Daniel's multboot2 extensions and the ARM multiboot implementation for example. Is that due to the tradition (not sure if that is the right word) that there aren't enough reviewers so folks shouldn't expect reviews? - Some patches that are in the git tree don't seem to have the Signed-Off-By which I find odd (*1). Patches that come from non-maintainers have them, but the maintainers/committers don't always? Is that because the committers have signed some form of 'implicit-Signed-off-by-when-I-check-in' document? I don't know enough about the community (or the history) to understand it but would very much appreciate input. And if I have offended somebody with my questions + feeble analysis: my deepest apologies - and please straighten me out! >From what I have gathered so far the not enough reviewers is tied in folks being overworked - so there simply was no point of posting on the mailing list as nobody had the time to review it or test it properly? [*1]: My background is in Linux kernel and Xen Project.