Multiple vendors seem to prefer taking discussions off list, and
ask contributors to work with them privately rather than just send
patches to the list. I'd imagine this is because it's hard to fit in
time for random developers popping up with features to review into
packed schedule. From what I've
On Fri, Jul 12, 2024 at 07:49:03AM -0700, Jakub Kicinski wrote:
> Multiple vendors seem to prefer taking discussions off list, and
> ask contributors to work with them privately rather than just send
> patches to the list. I'd imagine this is because it's hard to fit in
> time for random developers
On Fri, Jul 12, 2024 at 07:49:03AM -0700, Jakub Kicinski wrote:
> +Open development
> +
> +
> +Discussions about user reported issues, and development of new code
> +should be conducted in a manner typical for the larger subsystem.
> +It is common for development within a single co
On 7/12/24 09:25, Mark Brown wrote:
On Fri, Jul 12, 2024 at 07:49:03AM -0700, Jakub Kicinski wrote:
+Open development
+
+
+Discussions about user reported issues, and development of new code
+should be conducted in a manner typical for the larger subsystem.
+It is common for dev
On Fri, Jul 12, 2024 at 12:40:39PM +1000, Alistair Popple wrote:
>
> Peter Xu writes:
>
> > On Tue, Jul 09, 2024 at 02:07:31PM +1000, Alistair Popple wrote:
> >>
> >> Peter Xu writes:
> >>
> >> > Hi, Alistair,
> >> >
> >> > On Thu, Jun 27, 2024 at 10:54:26AM +1000, Alistair Popple wrote:
> >>
Em Fri, 12 Jul 2024 09:42:07 -0600
Shuah Khan escreveu:
> On 7/12/24 09:25, Mark Brown wrote:
> > On Fri, Jul 12, 2024 at 07:49:03AM -0700, Jakub Kicinski wrote:
> >
> >> +Open development
> >> +
> >> +
> >> +Discussions about user reported issues, and development of new code
>
On 7/12/24 11:11 AM, Mauro Carvalho Chehab wrote:
> IMO, the best would instead to give a positive message. E. g.
> something like:
>
> Maintainers must encourage discussions and reviews to happen
> at public mailing lists, avoiding whenever possible to have
> internal discuss
Jakub Kicinski wrote:
> Multiple vendors seem to prefer taking discussions off list, and
> ask contributors to work with them privately rather than just send
> patches to the list. I'd imagine this is because it's hard to fit in
> time for random developers popping up with features to review into
>
On Fri, 12 Jul 2024 20:11:56 +0200 Mauro Carvalho Chehab wrote:
> Not sure what this somewhat obscure message wants to accomplish.
>
> It is quite common to have developers and maintainers discussing
> outside public forums and internally at the companies they're working
> for. There are lots of
Jakub Kicinski wrote:
[..]
> Would it help if we speak of "open forums" instead of mailing list?
> I think LPC including "hallway track" fall squarely under "conducted
> in a manner typical for the larger subsystem." Here's slightly edited
> version:
>
> Open development
>
>
On Fri, 12 Jul 2024 11:43:14 -0700 Dan Williams wrote:
> This reads as a vague ambiguous quasi-threat with no actionable way to
> enforce it. In contrast, successful maintainers already have a sense of
> the benefits of pushing discussions to the list as much as possible.
>
> For new and growing m
On Fri, 12 Jul 2024 17:00:44 -0700 Dan Williams wrote:
> To be honest I am lost trying to understand who the audience is and what
> the actionable takeaway is from the guidance. It sounds like you are
> trying to educate drive-by submitters to push back against requests to
> take issues off the lis
Jakub Kicinski wrote:
[..]
> > So if this goes in as is, so be it, but it feels like a missed
> > opportunity to extoll the virtues of open development. The benefits are
> > in the same vector as the "release early, release often" guidance where
> > the urge to polish a solution in private is a com
13 matches
Mail list logo
