From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from mailman by lists.gnu.org with archive (Exim 4.43) id 1LntH7-0005VM-TS for mharc-grub-devel@gnu.org; Sun, 29 Mar 2009 07:34:02 -0400 Received: from mailman by lists.gnu.org with tmda-scanned (Exim 4.43) id 1LntGx-0005SY-Gd for grub-devel@gnu.org; Sun, 29 Mar 2009 07:33:51 -0400 Received: from exim by lists.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.43) id 1LntGs-0005RY-0k for grub-devel@gnu.org; Sun, 29 Mar 2009 07:33:49 -0400 Received: from [199.232.76.173] (port=36186 helo=monty-python.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1LntGq-0005RL-KH for grub-devel@gnu.org; Sun, 29 Mar 2009 07:33:45 -0400 Received: from mail-bw0-f167.google.com ([209.85.218.167]:38062) by monty-python.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.60) (envelope-from ) id 1LntGq-0004Gv-69 for grub-devel@gnu.org; Sun, 29 Mar 2009 07:33:44 -0400 Received: by bwz11 with SMTP id 11so1490416bwz.42 for ; Sun, 29 Mar 2009 04:33:43 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=domainkey-signature:received:received:message-id:date:from :user-agent:mime-version:to:subject:references:in-reply-to :content-type:content-transfer-encoding; bh=0jtPQuby0gkoKB0/jttj+atR4wCiaO5iz57CKhW07M0=; b=V6laeuCSL/mRYJOzn5I/WNHXX+o62R2pN+vJghWrhsA/PxZg6fV1gi4rtzgzM0JQkV ar7RAq2IP0obivgsfAIPY8xOHTSh04EEEN3VjJb13kgQgs5Ja3BYcRezCvFtBNT050CP 1wF8eXZMO+9nGYISOmK53k7Y5ol25tRqyxKgM= DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=message-id:date:from:user-agent:mime-version:to:subject:references :in-reply-to:content-type:content-transfer-encoding; b=IQngfP9rqIBev3xLt6LSnI+TZ25zz1avaf+Kdqi5iVYWlWHKE0jqcc2fw0PMFek9C3 f6zi8r6Mm3iO5EIjG4ikWI6fHrqyZQZaBulMDabnM1lUNoG4hy3DwEixFa78q07KYQE2 PARuxc45bbM+X2NScDfj6WkV23br5Erqvmy5A= Received: by 10.86.74.4 with SMTP id w4mr3436926fga.57.1238326422887; Sun, 29 Mar 2009 04:33:42 -0700 (PDT) Received: from ?192.168.1.25? (242-90.62-81.cust.bluewin.ch [81.62.90.242]) by mx.google.com with ESMTPS id d4sm4107902fga.8.2009.03.29.04.33.42 (version=SSLv3 cipher=RC4-MD5); Sun, 29 Mar 2009 04:33:42 -0700 (PDT) Message-ID: <49CF5C9C.20208@gmail.com> Date: Sun, 29 Mar 2009 13:33:48 +0200 From: phcoder User-Agent: Thunderbird 2.0.0.21 (X11/20090318) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: The development of GRUB 2 References: <49CF4200.7010500@nic.fi> <200903291909.56201.okuji@enbug.org> <49CF50D5.4060308@gmail.com> <49CF5318.2070607@nic.fi> In-Reply-To: <49CF5318.2070607@nic.fi> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-detected-operating-system: by monty-python.gnu.org: GNU/Linux 2.6 (newer, 2) Subject: Re: [PATCH] Split of the normal mode X-BeenThere: grub-devel@gnu.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list Reply-To: The development of GRUB 2 List-Id: The development of GRUB 2 List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Sun, 29 Mar 2009 11:33:52 -0000 I agree when it's about big changes. I wouldalso not commit anything what isn't quite tested or may break something. But when one-line bugfixes stay uncommited during 2-3 weaks it's something that isn't quite ok. Also if noone comments a relatively small patch in 1-2 weeks I think we should consider that everybody is happy with the patch and it should be commited. However somehow on this project it's not the same rules for everyone. Vesa Jääskeläinen wrote: > Here I must comment that in some cases it is favorable to do it this > way. I personally will only commit changes that I am happy to live with. > Even if you are developer with SVN commit rights it is in some cases > good idea to have general review of the patch... but there has been some > lack of the time from people to review them (and it does not cross > everyones interest zones, thus get attention to the patch). > > phcoder wrote: >> I'm actually quite unhappy with the grub's authority in general. Some >> people can commit their patches after a week of no replies while others >> like me have to wait that someone has time to review their patches in >> depth. I already have a collection of patches that are not commited, not >> because someone objects against them but just because nobody qualified >> enough has time to review and commit it. All this despite having already >> signed copyright assignment which because of slowness of FSF took more >> time than it should. From developer viewpoint it's very frustrating >> experience. If I wasn't so motivated as I am I would have already given >> up. IMO opinion if we want people coding for grub2 this has to be >> changed. But now you come and say you want to revert some patches just >> because they seem useless to you or rewrite some code just because you >> find it ugly or because it has a minor bug which could be easily fixed >> without rewriting. IMO this can easily drive developers to fork or leave >> project altogether. And additionally your energy would be much better >> spent in writing new stuff and making/reviewing design propositions than >> rewriting chunks of already working code. >> Sorry for being somewhat rude but I really find it frustrating this >> coder-unfriendliness >>> In brief, I take back the leadership of this project for general >>> directions. For some subsystems (e.g. the coreboot support), I >>> continue leaving the responsibility to those who know better or are >>> more active. Once the current code is reviewed and fixed (at some >>> degree), I will make a new release. >>> >>> Any objection? >>> >>> Regards, >>> Okuji >> > > > > _______________________________________________ > Grub-devel mailing list > Grub-devel@gnu.org > http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/grub-devel -- Regards Vladimir 'phcoder' Serbinenko