Re: [parisc-linux] Tree Issues

Re: [parisc-linux] Tree Issues

[Paul Bame]

= For various reasons, most of which I do not want to discuss in public,

I suspect the reasons you are not discussing may be the most
important ones since the ones you mention here seem resolvable.

= I am quite unhappy with the code that currently is in the tree;  most
= of it is unreviewed,

Indeed we're *all* guilty of checking in a few bad hacks "just to make it
work".

= and too much of it is in a state now where I
= think it is easier to rewrite it from scratch than to maintain it
= long-term.

This is a common point on many projects.  Especially when people learn
as they code, they make unwise decisions especially in the beginning,
which are best re-written at some point.

My hope was that we'd charge ahead to a working user land and tool
chain and then after enabling userland work to proceed, we'd go back
to clean up the kernel simultaneously with supporting 64 bit where
we'd get the chance to "do it right".

Do you feel a re-write is a faster way of enabling user-land
development to go forward than adding a few more hacks to our
existing hacks?

= This is not about individuals' contributions;  no-one can
= be blamed for submitting working code and relying on the tree
= maintainer to make sure some standards of quality and consistency are
= met.

Nobody is acting as this type of tree maintainer, and I for one would
welcome someone to review my checked-in code and let's me know what's
stupid about it.  The tree maintainer could even maintain a CVS tag
which designates the "maintainer's version" of the code.

= I am going to try to set up a sourceforge.net project to keep my
= modifications publicly-visible now;  while I'm not perfectly happy
= with announcing anything before people can actually look at my code,
= I couldn't think of any better way to do it.

I am willing to set up linux-2.3-prumpf on puffin.external.hp.com.
There's sufficient space to host another linux tree.

= To everyone whom I am not going to work with in the future, it has
= been a lot of fun to do so, even though I believe I'm going to have
= more fun with what I am going to do now.

I'll be interested to see what you'll be doing now.  It sounds
like you'll be fulfilling a role we need for the TPG port.
I'm a little surprised you're going elsewhere to do it, rather than 
just starting to do it with the TPG crowd and seeing what happens.

Good luck, and thanks for all your help so far.

	-Paul Bame

[parisc-linux] Tree Issues

[Philipp Rumpf]

Hi,
I just returned from spending a month in California working on stuff
not related to PA-RISC (and a week here trying to get back into
normal life).  If you sent me any email I didn't answer, you should
probably resend it now (if you still care about an answer, that is).

For various reasons, most of which I do not want to discuss in public,
I have decided not to continue merging my kernel changes with the
tree maintained by The Puffin Group / Linuxcare.

I am extremely grateful for TPG's help so far;  their co-operation
with HP in selecting the documentation to be published and making it
actually happen is what made this project possible.

I am quite unhappy with the code that currently is in the tree;  most
of it is unreviewed, and too much of it is in a state now where I
think it is easier to rewrite it from scratch than to maintain it
long-term.  This is not about individuals' contributions;  no-one can
be blamed for submitting working code and relying on the tree
maintainer to make sure some standards of quality and consistency are
met.

Any contributor that should decide (s)he wants to submit their work
to me directly is welcome to do so.  (But please realize that while
I will look at the changes in the TPG tree, I don't know whether TPG
will do the same with my tree).

I am going to try to set up a sourceforge.net project to keep my
modifications publicly-visible now;  while I'm not perfectly happy
with announcing anything before people can actually look at my code,
I couldn't think of any better way to do it.

To everyone whom I am not going to work with in the future, it has
been a lot of fun to do so, even though I believe I'm going to have
more fun with what I am going to do now.

Please feel free to send me any questions or comments either
personally (prumpf@tux.org is my preferred long-term address) or on
this list.

I am going to send a link to more details of the technical / code
changes after I actually put something about it together.

I do not think this fork has to be a permanent one, though I can't
help thinking it is likely to be;  I will be happy to talk to the
TPG/LC tree maintainers once I have a tree which I am happier with
than I am with the current cvs tree.

My apologies to Matthew for sending this right after he returned from
vacation.

	Philipp Rumpf

[There seems to be a common misunderstandment that I am still working
for SuSE GmbH.  I'm not, and I haven't for 6 months;  I'm currently
living on student loan and am not employed by any company]

Re: [parisc-linux] Tree Issues

[Grant Grundler]

Philipp Rumpf wrote:
> Hi,
> I just returned from spending a month in California working on stuff
> not related to PA-RISC (and a week here trying to get back into
> normal life).

Hi Philipp,

I hope things went well...certainly sounded interesting...

...
> I am going to try to set up a sourceforge.net project to keep my
> modifications publicly-visible now;  while I'm not perfectly happy
> with announcing anything before people can actually look at my code,
> I couldn't think of any better way to do it.

I was somewhat (not totally) surprised by this. I had to think about
several things before replying:
o what to do with hardware HP and/or TPG/LC have loaned you?
o should you keep CVS access rights to TPG's tree?
o why are you unhappy with TPG's CVS tree?
o why don't you want to talk publicly about it?
o what is the effective impact?

Easy stuff:
o I don't see why HP would want you to return any HW...as long as
  you keep using it for developement and post those results.
o You are not so stupid as to malicously mangle TPG's CVS tree.
  Keeping CVS access should be fine.


Hard Stuff:
o Not sure about the net impact. TPG and HP folks will continue working
  using TPG's tree. I'm pretty sure the debian release will be based
  on TPG's tree.

  But I can think of several excellent reasons why it's better for
  you to publish/manage your own tree:
  + you can change everything as often as you like - you'll be happier
    and make more changes.
  + You stop wasting time with merging your changes to TPG/LC's tree.
  + Those changes are visible "immediately" instead of waiting for
    you to commit code. (which has been a serious problem, IMHO).
  + You need the experience. Working with others is seldom really easy.
    And keeping people motivated to work on stuff that one needs help
    with requires such experience. I'm talking about:
    http://puffin.external.hp.com/mailing-lists/parisc-linux/1999/09-Sep/0011.html
    and similar conflicts with others.

  Drawbacks:
  - Someone else (who probably knows less about it) will end up
    merging your interesting changes to TPG/LC's tree.
    This is in addition to regular merges with linus' tree.


o I don't understand why you are so unhappy with TPG's CVS tree.
  Certainly there are design and implementation problems in that tree.
  But such compromises are necessary for cooperation. Until we have
  more data about what works/doesn't work, such compromises are part
  of sharing code. I didn't get everything I wanted either
  (eg do_irq_mask()).

  I assume you aren't talking about bug fixes.

o "Success" in a cooperative project like this requires constructive
  communication. Dave Miller/Martin Mares replied constructively to
  my e-mail inqueries despite the fact that (a) I'm a linux "novice" and
  (b) they have NFC who I am. I'm very impressed with both of them.
  And I think they also benefitted from at least a few of the things
  I wrote them.

...
> I do not think this fork has to be a permanent one, though I can't
> help thinking it is likely to be;

I suspect it will be too - working with others can be harder than
working alone. But on a "project" of this scope, I don't see one
person being successful.

> I will be happy to talk to the
> TPG/LC tree maintainers once I have a tree which I am happier with
> than I am with the current cvs tree.

Yes...but will they want to talk to you?
If HP helps TPG/LC run the tree, do they need to?
I hope you haven't "burned your bridges" here...


Anyway, thanks for telling us!
And I still look forward to future technical discussions with you!

thanks,
grant


Grant Grundler
Unix Development Lab
+1.408.447.7253

Re: [parisc-linux] Tree Issues

[Tomasz Korycki]

At 17:43 2000-05-10 -0700, you wrote:
>Philipp Rumpf wrote:
>> Hi,
>> I just returned from spending a month in California working on stuff
>> not related to PA-RISC (and a week here trying to get back into
>> normal life).
>
>Hi Philipp,
>
>I hope things went well...certainly sounded interesting...
>
>...
>> I am going to try to set up a sourceforge.net project to keep my
>> modifications publicly-visible now;  while I'm not perfectly happy
>> with announcing anything before people can actually look at my code,
>> I couldn't think of any better way to do it.
>
>I was somewhat (not totally) surprised by this. I had to think about
>several things before replying:
>o what to do with hardware HP and/or TPG/LC have loaned you?
>o should you keep CVS access rights to TPG's tree?
>o why are you unhappy with TPG's CVS tree?
>o why don't you want to talk publicly about it?
>o what is the effective impact?
>
>Easy stuff:
>o I don't see why HP would want you to return any HW...as long as
>  you keep using it for developement and post those results.
>o You are not so stupid as to malicously mangle TPG's CVS tree.
>  Keeping CVS access should be fine.
>
>
>Hard Stuff:
>o Not sure about the net impact. TPG and HP folks will continue working
>  using TPG's tree. I'm pretty sure the debian release will be based
>  on TPG's tree.
>
>  But I can think of several excellent reasons why it's better for
>  you to publish/manage your own tree:
>  + you can change everything as often as you like - you'll be happier
>    and make more changes.
>  + You stop wasting time with merging your changes to TPG/LC's tree.
>  + Those changes are visible "immediately" instead of waiting for
>    you to commit code. (which has been a serious problem, IMHO).
>  + You need the experience. Working with others is seldom really easy.
>    And keeping people motivated to work on stuff that one needs help
>    with requires such experience. I'm talking about:
>
http://puffin.external.hp.com/mailing-lists/parisc-linux/1999/09-Sep/0011.html
>    and similar conflicts with others.
>
>  Drawbacks:
>  - Someone else (who probably knows less about it) will end up
>    merging your interesting changes to TPG/LC's tree.
>    This is in addition to regular merges with linus' tree.
>
>
>o I don't understand why you are so unhappy with TPG's CVS tree.
>  Certainly there are design and implementation problems in that tree.
>  But such compromises are necessary for cooperation. Until we have
>  more data about what works/doesn't work, such compromises are part
>  of sharing code. I didn't get everything I wanted either
>  (eg do_irq_mask()).
>
>  I assume you aren't talking about bug fixes.
>
>o "Success" in a cooperative project like this requires constructive
>  communication. Dave Miller/Martin Mares replied constructively to
>  my e-mail inqueries despite the fact that (a) I'm a linux "novice" and
>  (b) they have NFC who I am. I'm very impressed with both of them.
>  And I think they also benefitted from at least a few of the things
>  I wrote them.
>
>...
>> I do not think this fork has to be a permanent one, though I can't
>> help thinking it is likely to be;
>
>I suspect it will be too - working with others can be harder than
>working alone. But on a "project" of this scope, I don't see one
>person being successful.
>
>> I will be happy to talk to the
>> TPG/LC tree maintainers once I have a tree which I am happier with
>> than I am with the current cvs tree.
>
>Yes...but will they want to talk to you?
>If HP helps TPG/LC run the tree, do they need to?
>I hope you haven't "burned your bridges" here...
>
>
>Anyway, thanks for telling us!
>And I still look forward to future technical discussions with you!
>

Phillip: THX for all You've done so far
Grant: THX for that reply.

Now:

Could someone find a way to keep this group together? Yes, it is _much_
harder to work as a team (especially such a widespread one) than
individually. But potential rewards are also greater, since the obtainable
results are bigger. Now, as I haven't contributed anything, my input should
not count as much as I hope it could, but could maybe some compromise be
reached? The worst disappointment comes when one realises, how little would
the compromise _really_ cost had one tried to at least discuss (and
negotiate) it. Pluribus unum, Viribus unitis, Nec Hercules contra plures,
and so on...

PLEASE!

Otherwise, I may start committing code, and we'll see what You all think of
the effort then...;)

Re: [parisc-linux] Tree Issues

[Grant Grundler]

Tomasz Korycki wrote:
...
> Phillip: THX for all You've done so far
> Grant: THX for that reply.
> 
> Now:
> 
> Could someone find a way to keep this group together?

Thomasz,
I don't understand your question.
I didn't have the impression Philipp was unsubscribing from parisc-linux
mailing lists and ignoring us.  He just wants a way to publish/manage his
own CVS repository and allow others to look at it.  Perhaps Philipp should
comment on that himself though...

> Otherwise, I may start committing code, and we'll see what You all think of
> the effort then...;)

You won't get flamed by me for doing that! :^)

I been know to send people older HW for offenses like that.
Even SCSI tape drives (especially to torment sshack :^).

cheers,
grant

Grant Grundler
Unix Development Lab
+1.408.447.7253

Re: [parisc-linux] Tree Issues

[Tomasz Korycki]

>Tomasz Korycki wrote:
>...
>> Phillip: THX for all You've done so far
>> Grant: THX for that reply.
>> 
>> Now:
>> 
>> Could someone find a way to keep this group together?
>
>Thomasz,
>I don't understand your question.
>I didn't have the impression Philipp was unsubscribing from parisc-linux
>mailing lists and ignoring us.  He just wants a way to publish/manage his
>own CVS repository and allow others to look at it.  Perhaps Philipp should
>comment on that himself though...

It was not my impression either - "group" was meant here to imply "this
group of people who've been cooperationg towards a common goal", mailing
list or no. I believe Phillip still has the same goals as all the other
active participants (and some inactive ones, too), just that he sees a
different way of attaining them, which seems both better and and more
feasible to him. And he may be right. What I suggest, then, is that it is in
everybody's (including Phillip's) best interest if he were to put his
strengths into making the "common way" more amenable to him. And everyone
else should, perhaps, try to accomodate his requirements. Since I do not
know what they are, though, I will not pass judgment on their merit or
feasibility. But I do know, that splitting like that weakens both sides.
Sometimes significantly. And that is what I would _really_ not like to see.
  That's the first place since the old Netblazer list I fill good at. I
would enjoy the continuance of that feeling. I know, I know, that's not what
this is about. But I thought it might matter. 

  There were some warm exchanges here (and probably hotter in private), but
that's what should be expected in a cooperative project. At the same time,
this being email, they are treated differently (no matter how hard one tries
not to) than a collegue busting into Your cubicle and telling You what
You're full of. It's the asynchronous nature that makes us treat it
differently, as well as no opportunity to go for a beer after work and
settling whatever issue, right on the spot. But it is still possible, if
everybody just tries.

  And, there are the dangers You, Grant, Yourself, pointed out. They are not
small.

  Heck, I'm so worked up now, I won't go to bed until I put that 712
together from spares... wonder what'll come out! ;)
  And then, I just might deliver on my threat...

>
>> Otherwise, I may start committing code, and we'll see what You all think of
>> the effort then...;)
>
>You won't get flamed by me for doing that! :^)
>
>I been know to send people older HW for offenses like that.
>Even SCSI tape drives (especially to torment sshack :^).
>
>cheers,
>grant
>
>Grant Grundler
>Unix Development Lab
>+1.408.447.7253
>
>

Re: [parisc-linux] Tree Issues

[Philipp Rumpf]

On Wed, May 10, 2000 at 05:43:46PM -0700, Grant Grundler wrote:
> > I am going to try to set up a sourceforge.net project to keep my
> > modifications publicly-visible now;  while I'm not perfectly happy
> > with announcing anything before people can actually look at my code,
> > I couldn't think of any better way to do it.
> 
> I was somewhat (not totally) surprised by this. I had to think about
> several things before replying:
> o why are you unhappy with TPG's CVS tree?
> o why don't you want to talk publicly about it?
> o what is the effective impact?

> Hard Stuff:
> o Not sure about the net impact. TPG and HP folks will continue working
>   using TPG's tree.

> I'm pretty sure the debian release will be based on TPG's tree.

I doubt there is any reason to have two userspace trees as well - even
if it should happen for some reason they certainly shouldn't introduce
binary incompatibilities.

> o I don't understand why you are so unhappy with TPG's CVS tree.
>   Certainly there are design and implementation problems in that tree.
>   But such compromises are necessary for cooperation. Until we have

I believe the problems in TPG's tree are not sufficiently explained by
that.  In fact, while the resulting code's design and implementation are
bad, I don't think that the real issue is with the contributors' coding
skills.

> > I do not think this fork has to be a permanent one, though I can't
> > help thinking it is likely to be;
> 
> I suspect it will be too - working with others can be harder than
> working alone. But on a "project" of this scope, I don't see one
> person being successful.

Other Linux ports have been done (basically) by one person - maybe you
can't see _me_ being successful, and I'm not sure whether I disagree
yet.

OTOH, I don't really want to find out.  There are other persons around
that I hope might join me, and I have access to the changes in the TPG
tree.

	Philipp Rumpf

Re: [parisc-linux] Tree Issues

[Philipp Rumpf]

On Wed, May 10, 2000 at 10:06:27PM -0700, Grant Grundler wrote:
> Tomasz Korycki wrote:
> I don't understand your question.
> I didn't have the impression Philipp was unsubscribing from parisc-linux
> mailing lists and ignoring us.

I wasn't :)

> He just wants a way to publish/manage his own CVS repository and allow
> others to look at it.

There is nothing strictly limiting it to a CVS repository - if seperate
mailing lists or something like that ever seem to make sense to me, I
will set them up.

That's basically why I went with sourceforge rather than accepting Paul's
linux-2.3-prumpf offer (thanks, anyway) - not depending on HP's continued
support, and having the option to move completely away from TPG's
resources.

	Philipp

Re: [parisc-linux] Tree Issues

[Philipp Rumpf]

I hoped to hear some kind of reaction from TPG/LC before doing this,
but it doesn't seem like that will happen anytime soon.

If you're interested in my tree, you can find it at
:pserver:anonymous@cvs.linux-parisc.sourceforge.net:/cvsroot/linux-parisc.
(empty password).

I'm currently working on a 712 and a c360, so those are the machines
that it is most likely to work on; some code for a180 and 715/old hasn't
been written yet, but probably will be soon (I have those machines here,
too).

Please feel free to send any questions, comments, or bug reports either
to me or to use the facilities sourceforge provides
(http://sourceforge.net/project/?group_id=5490, I think).

[is it okay to use this list ?]

If you can't get that tree booting on your machine, please tell me.  I
can't test on all four machines at the same time, so just a simple
"doesn't boot on <machine type>" message would be very helpful.

	Philipp Rumpf