On 21 January 2015 at 16:07, K. Macy <km...@freebsd.org> wrote: >>> HPS: Your change failed to meet these guidelines. Some of us are upset >>> because these guidelines are fairly fundamental for the on-going >>> viability of FreeBSD. Due to linguistic / time zone / cultural >>> differences these expectations have not been adequately communicated >>> to you. You are not in the USB sandbox where others need for your >>> support outweighs the inconvenience of random breakage. >>> >>> It sounds like you are making progress towards updating the concerns >>> that have been voiced. If kib's observations are in fact comprehensive >>> then adding a callout_init_cpu function and updating all clients so >>> that their callouts continue to be scheduled on a CPU other than the >>> BSP will suffice and we can all move on. >> >> Is there some reason that we can’t back things out, break things down into >> smaller pieces and have everything pass through phabric with a wide >> ranging review? Given the fundamental nature of these changes, they >> really need better review and doing it after the fact seems to be to be >> too risky. I’m not debating that this “fixes” some issues, but given the >> performance regression, it sure seems like we may need a different >> solution to be implemented and hashing that out in a branch might be >> the best approach. > > Thank you. A more incremental approach would be appreciated by many of > us. To avoid the bystander effect we can permit explicit timeouts for > review-to-commit (72 hours?) so that we don't collectively end up > sandbagging him.
I'm +1 for this. -a _______________________________________________ svn-src-all@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/svn-src-all To unsubscribe, send any mail to "svn-src-all-unsubscr...@freebsd.org"
