From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from list by lists.gnu.org with archive (Exim 4.71) id 1ZaQ4O-0000jk-Ly for mharc-grub-devel@gnu.org; Fri, 11 Sep 2015 11:16:56 -0400 Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([2001:4830:134:3::10]:40470) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1ZaQ4M-0000jD-FF for grub-devel@gnu.org; Fri, 11 Sep 2015 11:16:55 -0400 Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1ZaQ4H-0001dd-EY for grub-devel@gnu.org; Fri, 11 Sep 2015 11:16:54 -0400 Received: from mail-la0-x233.google.com ([2a00:1450:4010:c03::233]:35928) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1ZaQ4H-0001dQ-6Y for grub-devel@gnu.org; Fri, 11 Sep 2015 11:16:49 -0400 Received: by lanb10 with SMTP id b10so49823151lan.3 for ; Fri, 11 Sep 2015 08:16:48 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=subject:to:references:from:message-id:date:user-agent:mime-version :in-reply-to:content-type:content-transfer-encoding; bh=CFxCPBHGUxYeEqMiYteHB2Nsq9xBhEhzOxh8BBaWuNw=; b=SK/33BBN8pq9sJS7wJs23VxFYbs6GmpxxwPKkPzXbBg9P/xNPbO6pfn7fahkFctKXe hYBHiMRU0/hRvF+CpbgUXZyEPu181PvV6hIgZal2DXsFISRj+T6J0dmOUqvkoCK2BfRL pjKW5lfZdX87O9BTR9QTOPWf4Z/cZTCINwNIN6RJh2UO1JQD9RcCDF5HreQVHhTfwyhc kuG4xWc68IC9J75dxB0zawwcgY+WSA0qc4VtmAEz5oBRxyioKMMz5UxQcg024KHwYTP4 RJPQ+EFlTjwGLc2t7rAsi5mrrR77X6YCACl7XCUdV0A4Jm6ct4PTXNQVFX/5PWZSJgxk XWHw== X-Received: by 10.152.37.67 with SMTP id w3mr28236909laj.109.1441984608315; Fri, 11 Sep 2015 08:16:48 -0700 (PDT) Received: from [192.168.1.43] (ppp91-76-134-130.pppoe.mtu-net.ru. [91.76.134.130]) by smtp.gmail.com with ESMTPSA id u9sm123039lau.4.2015.09.11.08.16.47 (version=TLSv1.2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 bits=128/128); Fri, 11 Sep 2015 08:16:47 -0700 (PDT) Subject: Re: Development practices? To: Konrad Rzeszutek Wilk , The development of GNU GRUB 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> From: Andrei Borzenkov Message-ID: <55F2F05E.90503@gmail.com> Date: Fri, 11 Sep 2015 18:16:46 +0300 User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:38.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/38.2.0 MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: <20150911144833.GA16333@l.oracle.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-detected-operating-system: by eggs.gnu.org: Error: Malformed IPv6 address (bad octet value). X-Received-From: 2a00:1450:4010:c03::233 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: Fri, 11 Sep 2015 15:16:55 -0000 11.09.2015 17:48, Konrad Rzeszutek Wilk пишет: > On Fri, Sep 11, 2015 at 05:34:45PM +0300, Andrei Borzenkov wrote: >> 09.09.2015 20:47, Felix Zielcke пишет: >>> Am Dienstag, den 08.09.2015, 13:57 -0400 schrieb Konrad Rzeszutek Wilk: >>>> On Thu, Sep 03, 2015 at 03:34:29PM -0400, Konrad Rzeszutek Wilk >>>> wrote: >>> >>>> 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? >>>>> >>> >>> 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. > Thank you for answering my questions! >