We need better documentation so as to let more engineers understand the status quo quickly before they can jump into as reviewer.
-----Original Message----- From: grub-devel-bounces+ning.sun=intel....@gnu.org [mailto:grub-devel-bounces+ning.sun=intel....@gnu.org] On Behalf Of Konrad Rzeszutek Wilk Sent: Thursday, September 24, 2015 12:28 PM To: Andrei Borzenkov Cc: Vladimir Serbinenko; Paulo Flabiano Smorigo; Felix Zielcke; Leif Lindholm; The development of GNU GRUB Subject: Re: Development practices? On September 24, 2015 3:09:20 PM EDT, Andrei Borzenkov <arvidj...@gmail.com> wrote: > > >Отправлено с iPhone > >> 22 сент. 2015 г., в 20:28, Konrad Rzeszutek Wilk ><konrad.w...@oracle.com> написал(а): >> >>> On Fri, Sep 11, 2015 at 11:34:53AM -0400, Konrad Rzeszutek Wilk >wrote: >>> .. snip.. >>>>>>>>> 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. >>> >>> I see. From my perspective we are paid to work on the hobbies (Xen, >Linux, etc) >>> so the activity level is high since we have 8 hours a day to focus >on it >>> (minus bug activities, lunch, etc). >>> >>> While GRUB2 is all volunteer with whatever time can be spared? >>> >>> What if the companies that employ the committers allowed one day a >week >>> to focus on GRUB2 review/maintaince/etc? Would that help? >>> >>> Or is it unrealistic to expect that from committers employer's? >> >> ping? > >You realize that commiters' employers most likely do no read this list, >right? > True, but I hoped that the commiters's would forward this to their managers. May I assume from your email that if you had one day a week it would allow you to make much more progress on reviews, commits and a release? > >>>> >>>>> Thank you for answering my questions! >>>> _______________________________________________ Grub-devel mailing list Grub-devel@gnu.org https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/grub-devel _______________________________________________ Grub-devel mailing list Grub-devel@gnu.org https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/grub-devel
