On 2/9/21, John Baldwin wrote:
> On 2/9/21 6:53 AM, Alexey Dokuchaev wrote:
>> On Tue, Feb 09, 2021 at 02:41:15PM +0100, Mateusz Guzik wrote:
>>> ...
>>> More, if reviews were mandatory, I would expect their quality to go
>>> down even further, making them even less likely to prevent breakage.
>>
On Tue, Feb 9, 2021 at 3:17 PM John Baldwin wrote:
> On 2/9/21 6:53 AM, Alexey Dokuchaev wrote:
> > On Tue, Feb 09, 2021 at 02:41:15PM +0100, Mateusz Guzik wrote:
> >> ...
> >> More, if reviews were mandatory, I would expect their quality to go
> >> down even further, making them even less likely
On 2/9/21 6:53 AM, Alexey Dokuchaev wrote:
On Tue, Feb 09, 2021 at 02:41:15PM +0100, Mateusz Guzik wrote:
...
More, if reviews were mandatory, I would expect their quality to go
down even further, making them even less likely to prevent breakage.
Exactly that. In fact, the good reviews are ty
On Tue, 9 Feb 2021 at 08:41, Mateusz Guzik wrote:
>
> Examples from recent past (all fixed):
I don't think the examples are all good ones - several are failures of
our tooling, not of code review. The limited review effort we have
shouldn't be spent pointing out style(9) violations or build-break
On 2/9/21, Jessica Clarke wrote:
> Here's your review after reading through it for <5 minutes today:
>
> On 8 Feb 2021, at 19:15, Mateusz Guzik wrote:
>> +leaq(%r11,%r8),%rcx
>> +notq%r11
>> +andq%r11,%rcx
>> +andq%r9,%rcx
>> ...
>> +leaq(%r11,%r8),%rcx
>>
Here's your review after reading through it for <5 minutes today:
On 8 Feb 2021, at 19:15, Mateusz Guzik wrote:
> + leaq(%r11,%r8),%rcx
> + notq%r11
> + andq%r11,%rcx
> + andq%r9,%rcx
> ...
> + leaq(%r11,%r8),%rcx
> + notq%r11
> + andq%rcx,%
On Tue, Feb 09, 2021 at 02:41:15PM +0100, Mateusz Guzik wrote:
> ...
> More, if reviews were mandatory, I would expect their quality to go
> down even further, making them even less likely to prevent breakage.
Exactly that. In fact, the good reviews are typically coming from
people who care. But
On 2/9/21, Jessica Clarke wrote:
>> On 8 Feb 2021, at 23:13, Kevin Bowling wrote:
>>
>> FreeBSD does not require pre-commit approval unless called out
>> specifically. Are you volunteering to review the changes, and if so
>> where is your guidance? These messages are otherwise unhelpful.
>
> It
Warner,
My intent was not to attack Jessica just as I do not believe her
intent was to pick on Mateuz but from different perspectives
frustrations can build up to the point that the message is not well
received.
What I intended was the opposite: to encourage tact in this kind of exchange.
If we
One thing I think that has been missed in this discussion is that this
is hardly a piece of obscure code in a device driver that few people
have; instead, it's a piece of code that anyone who uses FreeBSD relies
on. My take on it would be that perhas such bits of code should be more
closely examin
Kevin,
I'm sure that you think you are being reasonable. But you sure are coming
off as attacking Jessica and I for a polite request to adhere to documented
project norms. It's not unreasonable to make a request. You are proposing a
crazy and unreasonable standard by attacking Jessica and I with t
I understand your position and Warner’s from the documentation. The
problem which is not described is that frustration is asymptotically higher
in the other direction without volunteering to do work. As another example
I could reply and ask for unit tests for any change (tests are obviously
helpf
> On 8 Feb 2021, at 23:13, Kevin Bowling wrote:
>
> FreeBSD does not require pre-commit approval unless called out
> specifically. Are you volunteering to review the changes, and if so
> where is your guidance? These messages are otherwise unhelpful.
It is not a hard requirement, but it is str
To be fair, though, FreeBSD has been moving to a culture where people seek
out reviews because they produce better results. It would be better for
complex changes, like this, if they underwent some kind of review... While
the tone of the message Jessica sent might not be to your liking, the
notion
FreeBSD does not require pre-commit approval unless called out
specifically. Are you volunteering to review the changes, and if so
where is your guidance? These messages are otherwise unhelpful.
On Mon, Feb 8, 2021 at 12:37 PM Jessica Clarke wrote:
>
> On 8 Feb 2021, at 19:15, Mateusz Guzik wr
On 8 Feb 2021, at 19:15, Mateusz Guzik wrote:
>
> The branch main has been updated by mjg:
>
> URL:
> https://cgit.FreeBSD.org/src/commit/?id=af366d353b84bdc4e730f0fc563853abc338271c
>
> commit af366d353b84bdc4e730f0fc563853abc338271c
> Author: Mateusz Guzik
> AuthorDate: 2021-02-08 17:01
The branch main has been updated by mjg:
URL:
https://cgit.FreeBSD.org/src/commit/?id=af366d353b84bdc4e730f0fc563853abc338271c
commit af366d353b84bdc4e730f0fc563853abc338271c
Author: Mateusz Guzik
AuthorDate: 2021-02-08 17:01:48 +
Commit: Mateusz Guzik
CommitDate: 2021-02-08 19:15:
17 matches
Mail list logo
