[squashfs] Who is responsible for code review?

[squashfs] Who is responsible for code review?

[Vyacheslav Dubeyko]

Hi all,

Who is responsible for code review and patch submission in squashfs
currently?

With the best regards,
Vyacheslav Dubeyko.

Re: [squashfs] Who is responsible for code review?

[richard -rw- weinberger]

On Fri, Jun 22, 2012 at 9:15 AM, Vyacheslav Dubeyko <slava@dubeyko.com> wrote:
> Hi all,
>
> Who is responsible for code review and patch submission in squashfs
> currently?

We have a script to answer such questions.
scripts/get_maintainer.pl

-- 
Thanks,
//richard

Re: [squashfs] Who is responsible for code review?

[Vyacheslav Dubeyko]

Hi,

> We have a script to answer such questions.
> scripts/get_maintainer.pl
> 
Ok. Thanks. :-)

I know that Phillip Lougher is the maintainer of squashfs file system
code. But he keeps silence during last time. It was patch from UCHINO
Satoshi recently but nobody said YES or NO on it. My question is about
such situation.

With the best regards,
Vyacheslav Dubeyko.

Re: [squashfs] Who is responsible for code review?

[Phillip Lougher]

On Fri, Jun 22, 2012 at 8:15 AM, Vyacheslav Dubeyko <slava@dubeyko.com> wrote:
> Hi all,
>
> Who is responsible for code review and patch submission in squashfs
> currently?

Anyone can review patches submitted for Squashfs and the kernel in
general.  So you could say everyone is  responsible for code review.

Maintainers like and want others to review code, this reduces their
workload, and it also provides a useful indication of community
opinion and interest in the patch(es).

Phillip

>
> With the best regards,
> Vyacheslav Dubeyko.
>
> --
> To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-fsdevel" in
> the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
> More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-fsdevel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html

Re: [squashfs] Who is responsible for code review?

[Phillip Lougher]

On Fri, Jun 22, 2012 at 11:53 AM, Vyacheslav Dubeyko <slava@dubeyko.com> wrote:
> Hi,
>
>> We have a script to answer such questions.
>> scripts/get_maintainer.pl
>>
> Ok. Thanks. :-)
>
> I know that Phillip Lougher is the maintainer of squashfs file system
> code. But he keeps silence during last time. It was patch from UCHINO
> Satoshi recently but nobody said YES or NO on it. My question is about
> such situation.
>

 Vyacheslav

You wrote "but nobody said YES or NO on it", and effectively answered
your own question.  The silence has been waiting for
feedback/code-review on these patches from others.

 The patches in question are adding a new feature to Squashfs.  New
features are always nice to have, but always carry the risk of
introducing bugs, performance regressions, and generally making the
code harder to maintain if (as is the case with these patches)  they
have been implemented in a way not to my liking.

I reviewed these patches when they arrived, and I got a poor opinion
of them.  However, I decided to give the patches a chance, and wait
and see what feedback/code-review they got.  So far they have received
nothing.

These emails may encourage some review of the patches, so, I'll wait a
couple more days, before giving feedback.

Phillip

> With the best regards,
> Vyacheslav Dubeyko.
>
> --
> To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-fsdevel" in
> the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
> More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-fsdevel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html

Re: [squashfs] Who is responsible for code review?

[Greg KH]

On Sat, Jun 23, 2012 at 03:01:27AM +0100, Phillip Lougher wrote:
> On Fri, Jun 22, 2012 at 11:53 AM, Vyacheslav Dubeyko <slava@dubeyko.com> wrote:
> > Hi,
> >
> >> We have a script to answer such questions.
> >> scripts/get_maintainer.pl
> >>
> > Ok. Thanks. :-)
> >
> > I know that Phillip Lougher is the maintainer of squashfs file system
> > code. But he keeps silence during last time. It was patch from UCHINO
> > Satoshi recently but nobody said YES or NO on it. My question is about
> > such situation.
> >
> 
>  Vyacheslav
> 
> You wrote "but nobody said YES or NO on it", and effectively answered
> your own question.  The silence has been waiting for
> feedback/code-review on these patches from others.
> 
>  The patches in question are adding a new feature to Squashfs.  New
> features are always nice to have, but always carry the risk of
> introducing bugs, performance regressions, and generally making the
> code harder to maintain if (as is the case with these patches)  they
> have been implemented in a way not to my liking.
> 
> I reviewed these patches when they arrived, and I got a poor opinion
> of them.  However, I decided to give the patches a chance, and wait
> and see what feedback/code-review they got.  So far they have received
> nothing.

That's not a good way to do review comments.  If you review them, let
the author know about your poor opinion.  That gives them, and others,
the chance to change your opinion if others feel you are incorrect, or,
if you are correct, it lets the author know they need to change their
code.

Just doing nothing publically doesn't help anyone out here, and only
causes confusion as this thread shows.

I read over these patches a while ago and offered some review, which I
see has been taken into consideration and changes were made.  Please let
us know your opinion so that we can all get something that works for
everyone accepted here.

thanks,

greg k-h

Re: [Squashfs-devel] [squashfs] Who is responsible for code review?

[Peter Korsgaard]

>>>>> "Phillip" == Phillip Lougher <phillip.lougher@gmail.com> writes:

Hi,

 Phillip>  The patches in question are adding a new feature to Squashfs.
 Phillip> New features are always nice to have, but always carry the
 Phillip> risk of introducing bugs, performance regressions, and
 Phillip> generally making the code harder to maintain if (as is the
 Phillip> case with these patches) they have been implemented in a way
 Phillip> not to my liking.

 Phillip> I reviewed these patches when they arrived, and I got a poor
 Phillip> opinion of them.  However, I decided to give the patches a
 Phillip> chance, and wait and see what feedback/code-review they got.
 Phillip> So far they have received nothing.

I would also prefer to see direct mtd support instead of through
mtdblock if anything rather than this direct memory access.

-- 
Bye, Peter Korsgaard