Re: [v6][PATCH 10/16] tools: introduce some new parameters to set rdm policy

["Chen, Tiejun" <tiejun.chen@intel.com>]

On 2015/7/8 21:27, Ian Jackson wrote:
> Chen, Tiejun writes ("Re: [v6][PATCH 10/16] tools: introduce some new parameters to set rdm policy"):
>> On 2015/7/8 19:47, Ian Jackson wrote:
>>> I appreciate that I have come to this review late.  While I have found
>>> the review conversation quite unsatisfactory, I don't really feel that
>>> I can reject the patch series pending better answers to my questions.
>>>
>>> Instead, I feel that I need to make a set of decisions which will
>>> avoid my review comments being a blocker for this series.  After
>>> discussing matters with the other tools maintainers, I have concluded:
> ...
>> Why didn't you guys say anything so long time? If you guys tried to give
>> us this kind of comments or suggestions as early as possible, I believe
>> you should can get that expected answer to your question.
>
> As I say, I'm sorry that I have come to this late.  There were other
> pressing problems taking my attention, but of course that is my
> problem and not your fault.
>
> (If I had been undertaking this review a couple of months ago I would
> have been taking a much harder line.)

Certainly I knew this point and trust me, I can image how harder it 
should be. And honestly, I really agree you should write such a bottom 
line to every series toward higher quality. So at this point I don't 
oppose any rigorous requirement.

But what I'm arguing here is that, if you really ask us to reach this 
standard, just please pay attention to this at the beginning. And then, 
no matter how bad things are, no matter how difficult your requirements 
are, it's going to be getting better and at least we shouldn't face 
current dilemma, because we would have relatively enough time to 
discuss/correct/improve any concerns. In fact, I also don't like this 
kind of rush-mode in short time :( Look, now both of us are frustrated.

So I know you guys are very busy but if you can take a little time just 
to take a rough look at our design, RFC and revision each time, things 
couldn't be worsen like now. Actually you should notice we're trying to 
make this process better, like we always post a design before we post 
any real patch, and we also take some internal review before we submit 
them in public. But I think this needs two sides together to work out, 
right?

If you have any good suggestion, just let me know.

>
>> Yes, we need to do this better. But this kind of argument really
>> shouldn't finish just one week.
>
> I think the remaining changes I am asking for are a few small simple
> mechanical changes.  If this series does not make 4.6 it will not be
> because of this.

I know this is already difficult to walk into 4.6 since several 
hypervisor patches are not acked completely...

But really thanks for your time and review to make me doing better as 
possible.

>
> I suggest we defer discussion of the other matters until after the
> freeze is in place, since (as I have indicated) I do not regard them
> as blockers.  That will also give us some time to cool off, and also
> perhaps for other community members to intervene helpfully.
>

Yes, I also have this similar intention. I'm going to show a TODO list 
to including anything I should do next, but just wait until we finalize 
to review this entire series.

Thanks
Tiejun