Re: AUTOSEL process

Sasha Levin
2023-03-11T21:02:22Z

On Sat, Mar 11, 2023 at 12:17:50PM -0800, Eric Biggers wrote:
>On Sat, Mar 11, 2023 at 01:26:57PM -0500, Sasha Levin wrote:
>> I'm getting a bunch of suggestions and complaints that I'm not implementing
>> those suggestions fast enough on my spare time.
>
>BTW, the "I don't have enough time" argument is also a little frustrating
>because you are currently insisting on doing AUTOSEL at all, at the current
>sensitivity that picks up way too many commits. I can certainly imagine that
>that uses a lot of your time! But, many contributors are telling you that
>AUTOSEL is actually *worse than nothing* currently.
>
>So to some extent this is a self-inflicted problem. You are *choosing* to spend
>your precious time running in-place with something that is not working well,
>instead of putting AUTOSEL on pause or turning down the sensitivity to free up
>time while improvements to the process are worked on.
>
>(And yes, I know there are many stable patches besides AUTOSEL, and it's a lot
>of work, and I'm grateful for what you do. I am *just* talking about AUTOSEL
>here. And yes, I agree that AUTOSEL is needed in principle, so there's no need
>to re-hash the arguments for why it exists. It just needs some improvements.)

Just to make sure I'm sending the right message: I'd *love* to improve
it, but I need help. I'm not pushing back on your ideas, I'm asking for
help with their implementation.

Maybe I'm putting words in Greg's mouth, but I think we both would
ideally want to standardize around a single set of tools and scripts,
it's just the case that both of us started with different set of
problems we were trying to solve, and so our tooling evolved
independently.

--
Thanks,
Sasha