RE: Development practices?

[Sun, Ning]

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: address@hidden [mailto:address@hidden 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 <address@hidden> wrote:
>
>
>Отправлено с iPhone
>
>> 22 сент. 2015 г., в 20:28, Konrad Rzeszutek Wilk
><address@hidden> 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
address@hidden
https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/grub-devel