From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from list by lists.gnu.org with archive (Exim 4.71) id 1ZeSIa-0001na-Vv for mharc-grub-devel@gnu.org; Tue, 22 Sep 2015 14:28:16 -0400 Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([2001:4830:134:3::10]:53054) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1ZeSIV-0001nF-KU for grub-devel@gnu.org; Tue, 22 Sep 2015 14:28:15 -0400 Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1ZeSIS-0005hK-E3 for grub-devel@gnu.org; Tue, 22 Sep 2015 14:28:11 -0400 Received: from aserp1040.oracle.com ([141.146.126.69]:29309) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1ZeSIS-0005gM-8U for grub-devel@gnu.org; Tue, 22 Sep 2015 14:28:08 -0400 Received: from aserv0021.oracle.com (aserv0021.oracle.com [141.146.126.233]) by aserp1040.oracle.com (Sentrion-MTA-4.3.2/Sentrion-MTA-4.3.2) with ESMTP id t8MIS4Rd031427 (version=TLSv1 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=OK); Tue, 22 Sep 2015 18:28:04 GMT Received: from aserv0121.oracle.com (aserv0121.oracle.com [141.146.126.235]) by aserv0021.oracle.com (8.13.8/8.13.8) with ESMTP id t8MIS2tq025944 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=FAIL); Tue, 22 Sep 2015 18:28:02 GMT Received: from abhmp0003.oracle.com (abhmp0003.oracle.com [141.146.116.9]) by aserv0121.oracle.com (8.13.8/8.13.8) with ESMTP id t8MIS2Gf021780; Tue, 22 Sep 2015 18:28:02 GMT Received: from l.oracle.com (/10.137.176.158) by default (Oracle Beehive Gateway v4.0) with ESMTP ; Tue, 22 Sep 2015 11:28:01 -0700 Received: by l.oracle.com (Postfix, from userid 1000) id BA6AF6A4D6E; Tue, 22 Sep 2015 14:28:00 -0400 (EDT) Date: Tue, 22 Sep 2015 14:28:00 -0400 From: Konrad Rzeszutek Wilk To: Andrei Borzenkov , Leif Lindholm , Vladimir Serbinenko , Felix Zielcke , Paulo Flabiano Smorigo Subject: Re: Development practices? Message-ID: <20150922182800.GA14331@l.oracle.com> References: <20150903193429.GA19514@l.oracle.com> <20150908175702.GA20019@l.oracle.com> <1441820865.2932.12.camel@z-51.de> <55F2E685.3070900@gmail.com> <20150911144833.GA16333@l.oracle.com> <55F2F05E.90503@gmail.com> <20150911153453.GB21981@l.oracle.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20150911153453.GB21981@l.oracle.com> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.23 (2014-03-12) X-Source-IP: aserv0021.oracle.com [141.146.126.233] X-detected-operating-system: by eggs.gnu.org: GNU/Linux 2.4.x-2.6.x [generic] X-Received-From: 141.146.126.69 Cc: The development of GNU GRUB 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: Tue, 22 Sep 2015 18:28:15 -0000 On Fri, Sep 11, 2015 at 11:34:53AM -0400, Konrad Rzeszutek Wilk wrote: > .. snip.. > > >>>>> 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? > > >>>>> > > >>> > > >>>Hi Konrad, > > >>> > > >>>back in 2008/2009 (when Marco Gerards gave over Maintainance to Robert > > >>>Millan) there were indeed not much people actively reviewing code. > > >>> > > >>>Active people on the mailing list was just given commit access. It was > > >>>expected that they only commit stuff without posting which doesn't need > > >>>a review and complies with the rules back at that time. > > >>> > > >>>Due to me missing a few years on the mailing list, I can't tell you > > >>>unfortunately how it compares to today. > > >>> > > >> > > >>Not much changes as far as I can tell. > > > > > >OK. > > > > > >What qualifies as needing an review? Personal preference by > > >the patch author? > > > > > > > I suppose, common sense. When I was given commit access, it was for > > "committing after review" so I still sent all patches to the list. Then it > > happened that Vladimir dropped off list for a long time and I tried to pick > > up obvious bug fixes from list or bug tracker to keep things going. > > > > I would say, any non-trivial bug fix or feature change needs to be posted > > first. > > > > I would love to have every patch posted and reviewed bug given current level > > of activity it is simply unrealistic. > > I see. From my perspective we are paid to work on the hobbies (Xen, Linux, etc) > so the activity level is high since we have 8 hours a day to focus on it > (minus bug activities, lunch, etc). > > While GRUB2 is all volunteer with whatever time can be spared? > > What if the companies that employ the committers allowed one day a week > to focus on GRUB2 review/maintaince/etc? Would that help? > > Or is it unrealistic to expect that from committers employer's? > ping? > > > > >Thank you for answering my questions! > > > > >