From owner-freebsd-bugbusters@FreeBSD.ORG Mon Jan 7 11:15:15 2008 Return-Path: Delivered-To: freebsd-bugbusters@hub.freebsd.org Received: from mx1.freebsd.org (mx1.freebsd.org [IPv6:2001:4f8:fff6::34]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 92A4B16A420 for ; Mon, 7 Jan 2008 11:15:15 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from owner-bugmaster@FreeBSD.org) Received: from freefall.freebsd.org (freefall.freebsd.org [IPv6:2001:4f8:fff6::28]) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8531613C478 for ; Mon, 7 Jan 2008 11:15:15 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from owner-bugmaster@FreeBSD.org) Received: from freefall.freebsd.org (linimon@localhost [127.0.0.1]) by freefall.freebsd.org (8.14.2/8.14.2) with ESMTP id m07BFFv5071590 for ; Mon, 7 Jan 2008 11:15:15 GMT (envelope-from owner-bugmaster@FreeBSD.org) Received: (from linimon@localhost) by freefall.freebsd.org (8.14.2/8.14.1/Submit) id m07BF2o8071551 for freebsd-bugbusters@FreeBSD.org; Mon, 7 Jan 2008 11:15:02 GMT (envelope-from owner-bugmaster@FreeBSD.org) Date: Mon, 7 Jan 2008 11:15:02 GMT Message-Id: <200801071115.m07BF2o8071551@freefall.freebsd.org> X-Authentication-Warning: freefall.freebsd.org: linimon set sender to owner-bugmaster@FreeBSD.org using -f From: FreeBSD bugmaster To: freebsd-bugbusters@FreeBSD.org Cc: Subject: PRs recommended for committer evaluation by the bugbusting team X-BeenThere: freebsd-bugbusters@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list Reply-To: freebsd-bugbusters@FreeBSD.org List-Id: "Coordination of the Problem Report handling effort." List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 07 Jan 2008 11:15:15 -0000 This is an experimental weekly posting from the bugbusting team containing PRs that we think are ready for evaluation by any interested committer. The idea is to try to match up people who are interested in going through the PRs with committers that are interested in helping. It is generated from the file /home/linimon/public_html/recommended.prs on freefall. This is intended to be a low-volume posting to see if we can get more people interested in bugbusting without being overwhelmed by the other weekly postings. Please give feedback on this report to linimon@FreeBSD.org. Thanks. 113111 freebsd- amd64 analyzed non-criti low current-us [Makefile] [patch] Potentially wrong instructions will be produced for EM64T with default CFLAGS 25986 silby kern patched serious high current-us Socket would hang at LAST_ACK forever. 40516 freebsd- kern open non-criti medium current-us [ti] [patch] ti driver has no baudrate set 78728 freebsd- bin open non-criti low current-us [patch] ntpd -- noisy when IPv4 or IPv6 interfaces are undefined 80348 freebsd- bin patched non-criti medium current-us rs(1) handles command line arguments improperly (SIGSEGV) 84740 remko kern patched serious medium current-us [libc] regcomp("\254") fails 84911 freebsd- bin open non-criti low current-us [patch] ndisgen(8) can't cope with .sys-files that begins with a number 98015 freebsd- kern patched non-criti low current-us [bfe] [patch] bfe(4): double free in error handling path. 102211 sos kern open serious high current-us [ar] [patch] detach raid member and reboot will cause panic (ICH7) 102653 andre kern patched serious medium current-us [tcp] TCP stack sends infinite retries for connection in LAST_ACK state 109494 matteo bin open non-criti low current-us [PATCH] ypserv(8): Add option to bind to specific port From owner-freebsd-bugbusters@FreeBSD.ORG Fri Jan 11 03:38:46 2008 Return-Path: Delivered-To: freebsd-bugbusters@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.freebsd.org (mx1.freebsd.org [IPv6:2001:4f8:fff6::34]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 90E3316A419; Fri, 11 Jan 2008 03:38:46 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from SRS0=3520e7db6f4fe31e53ed7207617e00a06c4043a3=576=es.net=oberman@es.net) Received: from postal1.es.net (postal3.es.net [IPv6:2001:400:14:3::8]) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id C777813C4D5; Fri, 11 Jan 2008 03:38:45 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from SRS0=3520e7db6f4fe31e53ed7207617e00a06c4043a3=576=es.net=oberman@es.net) Received: from ptavv.es.net (ptavv.es.net [198.128.4.29]) by postal3.es.net (Postal Node 3) with ESMTP (SSL) id REX17144; Thu, 10 Jan 2008 19:38:44 -0800 Received: from ptavv.es.net (ptavv.es.net [127.0.0.1]) by ptavv.es.net (Tachyon Server) with ESMTP id 390764500E; Thu, 10 Jan 2008 19:38:43 -0800 (PST) To: Mikhail Teterin In-Reply-To: Your message of "Thu, 27 Dec 2007 12:39:21 EST." <200712271239.23558.mteterin@mlp.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/signed; boundary="==_Exmh_1200022723_37347P"; micalg=pgp-sha1; protocol="application/pgp-signature" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Date: Thu, 10 Jan 2008 19:38:43 -0800 From: "Kevin Oberman" Message-Id: <20080111033843.390764500E@ptavv.es.net> X-Sender-IP: 198.128.4.29 X-Sender-Domain: es.net X-Recipent: ; ; ; ; ; ; ; X-Sender: X-To_Name: Mikhail Teterin X-To_Domain: mlp.com X-To: Mikhail Teterin X-To_Email: mteterin@mlp.com X-To_Alias: mteterin Cc: stable@freebsd.org, freebsd-usb@freebsd.org, freebsd-bugbusters@freebsd.org, mi+kde@aldan.algebra.com, henrik@gulbra.net, "M. Warner Losh" Subject: Re: USB issues (not just Re: PR backlog) X-BeenThere: freebsd-bugbusters@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: "Coordination of the Problem Report handling effort." List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 11 Jan 2008 03:38:46 -0000 --==_Exmh_1200022723_37347P Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline > From: Mikhail Teterin > Date: Thu, 27 Dec 2007 12:39:21 -0500 > Sender: owner-freebsd-stable@freebsd.org > > ÞÅÔ×ÅÒ 27 ÇÒÕÄÅÎØ 2007 12:33 ÐÏ, M. Warner Losh ÷É ÎÁÐÉÓÁÌÉ: > > I did the bulk of the work for the 7.0 stuff, at least getting things > > into the tree. šSince I did the work, my last job got totally insane > > and then I switched jobs. > > As the old Russian saying went: if vodka interferes with your job, you > have to stop working. Which explains why there are not more old Russians. :-) > > We can all agree that this is long overdue. But we need to make sure > > of a few critical details so we don't create another mess for > > ourselves down the line. > > Seriosly, thank you and do get back to it whenever you can. As to the original issue, I reported the same thing with my Olympus camera. It used to work fine, so this is a regression. It crashes current but simply fails when I use the HPS USB stack. (After a few seconds, the camera simply turns itself off.) As the original posted offered, I can provide a dump and posted the backtrace. I'd really love to be able to download pictures again, but I am not optimistic. -- R. Kevin Oberman, Network Engineer Energy Sciences Network (ESnet) Ernest O. Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory (Berkeley Lab) E-mail: oberman@es.net Phone: +1 510 486-8634 Key fingerprint:059B 2DDF 031C 9BA3 14A4 EADA 927D EBB3 987B 3751 --==_Exmh_1200022723_37347P Content-Type: application/pgp-signature -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.4.7 (FreeBSD) Comment: Exmh version 2.5 06/03/2002 iD8DBQFHhuTDkn3rs5h7N1ERAmeuAKCwExj2k7Cmo4mFKM84syzB5GM87gCfavIf ZNwSyQxqasSYVM1RBNnY9Nw= =r1LI -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --==_Exmh_1200022723_37347P-- From owner-freebsd-bugbusters@FreeBSD.ORG Fri Jan 11 20:41:48 2008 Return-Path: Delivered-To: freebsd-bugbusters@FreeBSD.org Received: from mx1.freebsd.org (mx1.freebsd.org [IPv6:2001:4f8:fff6::34]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id E79B116A420; Fri, 11 Jan 2008 20:41:48 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from linimon@lonesome.com) Received: from mail.soaustin.net (lefty.soaustin.net [66.135.55.46]) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8A15013C455; Fri, 11 Jan 2008 20:41:48 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from linimon@lonesome.com) Received: by mail.soaustin.net (Postfix, from userid 502) id 1DD9E8C12A; Fri, 11 Jan 2008 14:41:48 -0600 (CST) Date: Fri, 11 Jan 2008 14:41:48 -0600 To: Peter Schuller Message-ID: <20080111204148.GA4787@soaustin.net> References: <478556AD.6090400@bsdforen.de> <20080110003524.GB5188@soaustin.net> <200801111935.50821.peter.schuller@infidyne.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <200801111935.50821.peter.schuller@infidyne.com> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.13 (2006-08-11) From: linimon@lonesome.com (Mark Linimon) Cc: Mark Linimon , freebsd-current@freebsd.org, freebsd-bugbusters@FreeBSD.org, Eric Anderson Subject: Re: Improving the handling of PR:s X-BeenThere: freebsd-bugbusters@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: "Coordination of the Problem Report handling effort." List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 11 Jan 2008 20:41:49 -0000 On Fri, Jan 11, 2008 at 07:35:41PM +0100, Peter Schuller wrote: > But understandable or not, the problem becomes particularly frustrating when > it affects PR:s that contain patches. Such PR:s constitute direct > contributions to the project. In cases where such patches are correct/good > enough, the non-application of those patches have what I believe to be > significant effects. I think you make some excellent points -- especially with how understandable it is for someone who's submitted a patch which got ignored, to not do the work to submit the next one. With respect to patches, the two things that I've tried -- and they have been insufficient -- are the following: - weekly email of "PRs containing patches" - weekly email of "PRs recommended by the bugbuster team" We can make the following observations: - the "push" paradigm doesn't work particularly well. Partly this is due to fatigue if you try to read through all this stuff (see below). - the "recommended" list has been slightly effective, but it's going to take some time for it to take off. For one thing, it has been underpublicized; for another, we don't have the culture of committers getting "warm fuzzies" from committing PRs. (Since no one working on that kind of stuff gets paid AFAIK, that's the only positive feedback they're going to get.) Last week someone made the observation that if these things were instead updated daily and posted to a web page, that it would be far more useful. I've taken that up as a task. Your other point about "latest PRs" is also a good one. That should be relatively easy to do. I'll take up that task. > * The committer may not be familiar with the code and, even though the patch > looks good generally, it is felt that someone familiar with that part of the > system needs to have a look. In particular, this hurts for areas of the system that are unmaintained. > What I suggest is a system where a group of non-committers systematically > pre-process PR:s, to provide feedback and additional quality assurance to the > committer that is to process the PR. > > This group of people could either be a self-proclaimed group of volunteers, or > perhaps a group of people satisfying the criteria of "guy we kinda trust to > do testing and provide a useful indication of sanity and correctness, but not > with a commit bit". So far it hasn't happened. We've set up the freebsd-bugbusters@ mailing list and the #freebsd-bugbusters IRC channel on EFNet (and please join us!) and the latter is where our last 2 bugathons took place. It's clear that there are several people who want to help process the PRs, and we don't have a good answer for them on "how can I contribute?". The existing tool, and social conventions, don't allow for non-committers to change PR states. As far as we've done in the past is to grant people "GNATS access" rights but not "commit rights", on an experimental basis. We've done this twice, and although it has worked well, just two people isn't enough. (One has gone on to become a full committer -- which is great!; the other current does not have as much time for FreeBSD work). Several hundred PRs were dealt with by these two folks, so I consider the experiment a success. What we used as a qualification was "track record of responding to PRs and questions on mailing lists", fwiw. > One possible answer to this that I have gotten in the past with another > project, is that noone is stopping me from just grabbing a bunch of PR:s and > posting follow-ups saying I've tested something, or otherwise giving > feedback. Yes, but that's open-loop as well. It's the same situation as with submitting the patch in the first place: it's going to get frustrating if no committer picks it up and commits it. There's not too many people so thick-skinned and persistent as to keep going forward when no one's using their work. > For example, patches with a high confidence of correctness due to many people > affirming that they have tested it could be automatically prioritized for > committers to deal with, and there will be a clear and systematic record of > what testing was done, and by who. Right. The "priority" field in GNATS has been so abused as to become useless. (People assume that setting it higher will cause some kind of magic to happen.) My current thinking is that what committers ought to see is a metric of correctness, and a metric of priority, _as set by someone who's vetted the PR_. The weekly mailings are too poor an approximation of either to be useful. Adding the second metric would cure one problem that you don't mention -- which is that few people have the interest and patience to plow through N-thousand PRs. It's not humanly possible to look at them all -- even the new ones as they come in. There's simply too many. So, you create an expectation "why bother, there's so many anyways". We need to break that chain of expectation. A good fix is a good fix. The PR count will never get to zero; I (with bugmaster hat on) would be thrilled if we can get to the point of just steady-state. > When I talk about priority above, I do not mean to imply that any committer > should work on things they do not want to work on. But I have to assume that > a lot of patches get committed because a committer decided to go and pick a > few PR:s to process, rather than the committer necessarily has a burning > interest in that particular patch. I think most get committed because a committer sees a PR come in on the mailing list and grabs it. Much less often do committers go through the database looking for things to fix. Again, the lousy "search/browse" capabilities of the existing tool let us down here. > As such, if said committer could spend those minutes closing five times as > many PR:s because the up-front confidence in the correctness of the patch is > so much higher, perhaps it would help the system to "scale", moving some of > the burden off the committers. Right. What we need is to start small and create a _culture_ of where it's fun (or at least intellectually interesting) to work on this stuff. I think the IRC channel may still be the best bet for this. Once I finish fiddling around with the sparc64-6 and sparc64-7 release builds (the first approximation is finished, but I believe we can still add some more packages), I intend to task-switch over to looking towards defining a PR workflow and floating some proposals. I hope to have something concrete to present at BSDCan. Please join us on bugbusters@ to discuss any more ideas, too. mcl From owner-freebsd-bugbusters@FreeBSD.ORG Fri Jan 11 20:54:11 2008 Return-Path: Delivered-To: freebsd-bugbusters@FreeBSD.org Received: from mx1.freebsd.org (mx1.freebsd.org [IPv6:2001:4f8:fff6::34]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id E0C9716A419; Fri, 11 Jan 2008 20:54:11 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from linimon@lonesome.com) Received: from mail.soaustin.net (lefty.soaustin.net [66.135.55.46]) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id B2D2913C4E5; Fri, 11 Jan 2008 20:54:11 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from linimon@lonesome.com) Received: by mail.soaustin.net (Postfix, from userid 502) id 4E6318C0F8; Fri, 11 Jan 2008 14:54:11 -0600 (CST) Date: Fri, 11 Jan 2008 14:54:11 -0600 To: Robert Watson Message-ID: <20080111205411.GC4787@soaustin.net> References: <189878.45301.qm@web57002.mail.re3.yahoo.com> <20080110171132.GM71709@tuxaco.net> <1199987094.1713.20.camel@localhost> <47866B2A.8070503@elischer.org> <20080110201548.36862edb.timo.schoeler@riscworks.net> <3a142e750801101134p659f50c8qac731334dab9877d@mail.gmail.com> <20080110215931.f14b78ec.timo.schoeler@riscworks.net> <20080110210844.J4766@fledge.watson.org> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20080110210844.J4766@fledge.watson.org> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.13 (2006-08-11) From: linimon@lonesome.com (Mark Linimon) Cc: Timo Schoeler , freebsd-bugbusters@FreeBSD.org, freebsd-current@freebsd.org Subject: Re: strace broken in 7.0? X-BeenThere: freebsd-bugbusters@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: "Coordination of the Problem Report handling effort." List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 11 Jan 2008 20:54:12 -0000 Please see my responses to some of these points on a posting I've made in a followup to "Improving the handling of PR:s", initially on freebsd-current@ but now Cc:ed to freebsd-bugbusters@. On Thu, Jan 10, 2008 at 09:16:54PM +0000, Robert Watson wrote: > I know that Mark Linimon has done quite a bit of analysis of the state of > the PRs, especially as to which ones stay open vs. which ones get closed, > and may be able to offer some insight. I have a vague recollection that > last time around, he reported essentially linear growth in open kernel bug > reports, and essentially stable ports PRs, but I've not really seen stats > on how bug reports against the base system get closed. For example, I'm > not sure we make a "fixed" vs "closed" distinction, which we'd need in > order to do a good analysis. No, we don't make that distinction. Also, we've lost the software that was showing us the graphs of PR count per category over time; the committer who was maintaining it had not had time to work on FreeBSD in a long while and requested his commit bit be returned. Unfortunately we went ahead and cleared out his account, which is where the code that ran that stuff lived. (If I had known about it, I would have grabbed it.) My recollection, last I looked, is there are large swings in the ports PRs, which happen to coincide exactly with ports freezes :-) The kern and bin PRs increase linearly until someone hard-headed enough plows through and knocks a couple of hundred out (hi Kip, Warner :-) ) The curves have flattened out a bit in the past year but we're not close to steady-state there. kern is probably > 30% of the count; bin, > 20%, ports, 20-30%, depending on how open the tree is for commits. The other categories aren't as worrisome as the first 2, and the ports stuff is affected by having an auto-assigner and to some extent portsmon to hang off of them. So really, over 50% of our problem is kern/bin (kern includes drivers and libraries, fwiw.) Again, as I say in that other post, I intend to task-switch onto thinking about what we can do about these situations. We really need to translate "I'd like to help" into "here's what you can do". mcl From owner-freebsd-bugbusters@FreeBSD.ORG Fri Jan 11 21:16:44 2008 Return-Path: Delivered-To: freebsd-bugbusters@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.freebsd.org (mx1.freebsd.org [IPv6:2001:4f8:fff6::34]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id B26AD16A419 for ; Fri, 11 Jan 2008 21:16:44 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from linimon@lonesome.com) Received: from mail.soaustin.net (lefty.soaustin.net [66.135.55.46]) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 99C0E13C467 for ; Fri, 11 Jan 2008 21:16:44 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from linimon@lonesome.com) Received: by mail.soaustin.net (Postfix, from userid 502) id 38AF68C12A; Fri, 11 Jan 2008 15:16:44 -0600 (CST) Date: Fri, 11 Jan 2008 15:16:44 -0600 To: Yoshihiro Ota Message-ID: <20080111211644.GA6522@soaustin.net> References: <20071226.003547.-932932005.imp@bsdimp.com> <1198689316.1119.382.camel@Particle> <20071226180415.GA27409@soaustin.net> <20071226.114224.-432836428.imp@bsdimp.com> <18754.194.74.82.3.1198744988.squirrel@galain.elvandar.org> <20071228020749.b5fc0ab2.ota@j.email.ne.jp> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20071228020749.b5fc0ab2.ota@j.email.ne.jp> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.13 (2006-08-11) From: linimon@lonesome.com (Mark Linimon) Cc: freebsd-bugbusters@freebsd.org, "M. Warner Losh" Subject: Re: PR backlog X-BeenThere: freebsd-bugbusters@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: "Coordination of the Problem Report handling effort." List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 11 Jan 2008 21:16:44 -0000 On Fri, Dec 28, 2007 at 02:07:49AM -0500, Yoshihiro Ota wrote: > I also opened the PR database a couple weeks ago looking for a solution > to bugs I encountered. It's been quite long, some years, since I opened > the PR page last time. It was surprising and also disappointing on > the number of PRs left open for long time. > > How do I help that cleaning job? I am also interested fixing and > concerned about this fact. I'm sorry that I have not responded to you earlier. I have been busy doing some ports work. Please see the posting from Peter Schuller to freebsd-current@freebsd.org: 200801111935.50821.peter.schuller@infidyne.com (Subject: Improving the handling of PR:s.) He makes some excellent observations and suggestions. I've gone ahead and replied to that posting with some of my current thinking, both to current@ and bugbusters@. mcl From owner-freebsd-bugbusters@FreeBSD.ORG Sat Jan 12 10:27:54 2008 Return-Path: Delivered-To: freebsd-bugbusters@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.freebsd.org (mx1.freebsd.org [IPv6:2001:4f8:fff6::34]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id B47CD16A417; Sat, 12 Jan 2008 10:27:54 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from m.seaman@infracaninophile.co.uk) Received: from smtp.infracaninophile.co.uk (gate6.infracaninophile.co.uk [IPv6:2001:8b0:151:1::1]) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 089BF13C447; Sat, 12 Jan 2008 10:27:53 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from m.seaman@infracaninophile.co.uk) Received: from happy-idiot-talk.infracaninophile.co.uk (localhost [IPv6:::1]) by smtp.infracaninophile.co.uk (8.14.2/8.14.2) with ESMTP id m0CARltv027673; Sat, 12 Jan 2008 10:27:47 GMT (envelope-from m.seaman@infracaninophile.co.uk) X-DKIM: Sendmail DKIM Filter v2.4.2 smtp.infracaninophile.co.uk m0CARltv027673 Authentication-Results: smtp.infracaninophile.co.uk; dkim=hardfail (SSP) header.i=unknown Message-ID: <47889623.3090203@infracaninophile.co.uk> Date: Sat, 12 Jan 2008 10:27:47 +0000 From: Matthew Seaman Organization: Infracaninophile User-Agent: Thunderbird 2.0.0.9 (X11/20071122) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Mark Linimon References: <478556AD.6090400@bsdforen.de> <20080110003524.GB5188@soaustin.net> <200801111935.50821.peter.schuller@infidyne.com> <20080111204148.GA4787@soaustin.net> In-Reply-To: <20080111204148.GA4787@soaustin.net> X-Enigmail-Version: 0.95.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Greylist: Sender IP whitelisted, not delayed by milter-greylist-3.0 (smtp.infracaninophile.co.uk [IPv6:::1]); Sat, 12 Jan 2008 10:27:48 +0000 (GMT) X-Virus-Scanned: ClamAV 0.92/5478/Fri Jan 11 15:39:22 2008 on happy-idiot-talk.infracaninophile.co.uk X-Virus-Status: Clean X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.9 required=5.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00,NO_RELAYS autolearn=ham version=3.2.3 X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.2.3 (2007-08-08) on happy-idiot-talk.infracaninophile.co.uk Cc: freebsd-current@freebsd.org, freebsd-bugbusters@freebsd.org Subject: Re: Improving the handling of PR:s X-BeenThere: freebsd-bugbusters@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: "Coordination of the Problem Report handling effort." List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Sat, 12 Jan 2008 10:27:54 -0000 -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA256 Mark Linimon wrote: > It's clear that there are several people who want to help process the > PRs, and we don't have a good answer for them on "how can I contribute?". > The existing tool, and social conventions, don't allow for non-committers > to change PR states. As far as we've done in the past is to grant people > "GNATS access" rights but not "commit rights", on an experimental basis. > We've done this twice, and although it has worked well, just two people > isn't enough. (One has gone on to become a full committer -- which is > great!; the other current does not have as much time for FreeBSD work). > Several hundred PRs were dealt with by these two folks, so I consider the > experiment a success. > > What we used as a qualification was "track record of responding to PRs and > questions on mailing lists", fwiw. Most of my experience with submitting PRs is ports related. If I post a PR against a port I maintain then I'm pretty certain that it will be dealt with in a matter of days. PRs against other ports take perhaps a week. On the other hand, I've put in occasional PRs against the base system - -- where it's a whole other story. My favourite is a patch I sent in to allow using k, M, G etc. as order of magnitude modifiers on find(1)'s - -size predicate. It was committed recently after sitting in the PR database untouched for about 3 years. As I understand it, I think the reason for this difference in performance at resolving PRs is because there is a body of ports committers that basically expect to spend a lot of time committing other people's work, whereas src committers are generally focussed on their own projects and tend to commit what they or people closely associated with them have developed. Perhaps part of the answer is to create a new cadre of people with commit rights over parts of the src tree. These would be relatively junior people whose principal function would be to review and commit contributed patches, or bring them to the attention of any of the more senior people if the contribution warranted it. Senior people benefit by having fewer irrelevant distractions. General FreeBSD users benefit by knowing that contributions they make will be considered more promptly. People that volunteer for this benefit by gaining a broad introduction to the src code base -- surely a useful step for anyone with ambitions towards full committer-hood. Cheers, Matthew - -- Dr Matthew J Seaman MA, D.Phil. 7 Priory Courtyard Flat 3 PGP: http://www.infracaninophile.co.uk/pgpkey Ramsgate Kent, CT11 9PW -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v2.0.4 (FreeBSD) Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org iD8DBQFHiJYj8Mjk52CukIwRCLuHAJwM0u7m0lhus1KSvraV2dxMfvZELQCfZXFh iub5gnKeG8H7t7O5UFxLTpE= =sdaT -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- From owner-freebsd-bugbusters@FreeBSD.ORG Sat Jan 12 11:03:04 2008 Return-Path: Delivered-To: freebsd-bugbusters@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.freebsd.org (mx1.freebsd.org [IPv6:2001:4f8:fff6::34]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 80C4F16A46D for ; Sat, 12 Jan 2008 11:03:04 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from fullermd@over-yonder.net) Received: from optimus.centralmiss.com (ns.centralmiss.com [206.156.254.79]) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4B21B13C467 for ; Sat, 12 Jan 2008 11:03:03 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from fullermd@over-yonder.net) Received: from draco.over-yonder.net (adsl-072-148-013-213.sip.jan.bellsouth.net [72.148.13.213]) (using TLSv1 with cipher ADH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by optimus.centralmiss.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id E139428454; Sat, 12 Jan 2008 04:46:08 -0600 (CST) Received: by draco.over-yonder.net (Postfix, from userid 100) id 8054A61C44; Sat, 12 Jan 2008 04:46:08 -0600 (CST) Date: Sat, 12 Jan 2008 04:46:08 -0600 From: "Matthew D. Fuller" To: Matthew Seaman Message-ID: <20080112104608.GD87329@over-yonder.net> References: <478556AD.6090400@bsdforen.de> <20080110003524.GB5188@soaustin.net> <200801111935.50821.peter.schuller@infidyne.com> <20080111204148.GA4787@soaustin.net> <47889623.3090203@infracaninophile.co.uk> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <47889623.3090203@infracaninophile.co.uk> X-Editor: vi X-OS: FreeBSD User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.17-fullermd.4 (2007-11-01) Cc: Mark Linimon , freebsd-bugbusters@freebsd.org Subject: Re: Improving the handling of PR:s X-BeenThere: freebsd-bugbusters@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: "Coordination of the Problem Report handling effort." List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Sat, 12 Jan 2008 11:03:04 -0000 On Sat, Jan 12, 2008 at 10:27:47AM +0000 I heard the voice of Matthew Seaman, and lo! it spake thus: > > As I understand it, I think the reason for this difference in > performance at resolving PRs is because there is a body of ports > committers that basically expect to spend a lot of time committing > other people's work, whereas src committers are generally focussed > on their own projects and tend to commit what they or people closely > associated with them have developed. That's certainly a good part of it, but I think there's another important contributing factor, which is the assumed responsibility. If I submit an update to my port and anything's wrong with it, of course, it's my problem. If it screws up INDEX builds or something like that, whoever committed it is probably in for some heat too. But if it works as a port just fine (which is the rough equivalent of "it compiles" in src/), and happens to just be a completely broken release of the application, *I*'m sure in for it, but nobody attaches any responsibility to the committer for it. There's no expectation that they vet all the functionality of programs submitted. It's not their job to make sure I know what I'm doing; just that my mistakes don't mess up other people's ports. I'm free to screw up mine :) In contrast, if you commit something into src/ that fails somehow, your feet are on the fire as much (or more) than the submitter's. There may be nobody that stands up and smacks you with the Shame Stick, but the general culture tends to inculcate you with an awareness that you screwed up, in a way that a ports committer commiting a "correct" update of a port submitted by the maintainer that happens to be a broken version of the application wouldn't. That has to have a disincentive effect on your willingness to put something in, especially if it's in an area of code you don't know well enough to be confident about all the side effects. And even if you could wave a magic wand and get rid of that cultural inclination, I don't think you _should_; it's a proper difference in orientation, considering the needs and properties of the two different realms. It's not really solvable because it's not exactly a "problem"; but it is a reason for the difference. -- Matthew Fuller (MF4839) | fullermd@over-yonder.net Systems/Network Administrator | http://www.over-yonder.net/~fullermd/ On the Internet, nobody can hear you scream. From owner-freebsd-bugbusters@FreeBSD.ORG Sat Jan 12 18:43:46 2008 Return-Path: Delivered-To: freebsd-bugbusters@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.freebsd.org (mx1.freebsd.org [IPv6:2001:4f8:fff6::34]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id EC87F16A417 for ; Sat, 12 Jan 2008 18:43:45 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from peter.schuller@infidyne.com) Received: from smtp.infidyne.com (ds9.infidyne.com [88.80.6.206]) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5D2DF13C468 for ; Sat, 12 Jan 2008 18:43:45 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from peter.schuller@infidyne.com) Received: from c-8216e555.03-51-73746f3.cust.bredbandsbolaget.se (c-8216e555.03-51-73746f3.cust.bredbandsbolaget.se [85.229.22.130]) by smtp.infidyne.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 43EDF7613A; Sat, 12 Jan 2008 19:23:52 +0100 (CET) From: Peter Schuller To: freebsd-current@freebsd.org Date: Sat, 12 Jan 2008 19:24:02 +0100 User-Agent: KMail/1.9.7 References: <478556AD.6090400@bsdforen.de> <200801111935.50821.peter.schuller@infidyne.com> <20080111204148.GA4787@soaustin.net> In-Reply-To: <20080111204148.GA4787@soaustin.net> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/signed; boundary="nextPart1532281.ZVzCsaMe5P"; protocol="application/pgp-signature"; micalg=pgp-sha1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Message-Id: <200801121924.10694.peter.schuller@infidyne.com> Cc: Mark Linimon , freebsd-bugbusters@freebsd.org Subject: Re: Improving the handling of PR:s X-BeenThere: freebsd-bugbusters@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: "Coordination of the Problem Report handling effort." List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Sat, 12 Jan 2008 18:43:46 -0000 --nextPart1532281.ZVzCsaMe5P Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Content-Disposition: inline [not sure whether to remove -current from cc; keeping it for now] > So far it hasn't happened. We've set up the freebsd-bugbusters@ mailing > list and the #freebsd-bugbusters IRC channel on EFNet (and please join > us!) and the latter is where our last 2 bugathons took place. That's interesting. I'll try to get in on it. Perhaps this could use some m= ore=20 publicitly? Though I cannot claim I have gone out of my way to find exactly= =20 this, I was unaware of it in spite of spending quite a lot of time followin= g=20 =46reeBSD mailinglists. > Adding the second metric would cure one problem that you don't mention -- > which is that few people have the interest and patience to plow through > N-thousand PRs. It's not humanly possible to look at them all -- even > the new ones as they come in. There's simply too many. So, you create > an expectation "why bother, there's so many anyways". We need to break > that chain of expectation. A good fix is a good fix. The PR count will > never get to zero; I (with bugmaster hat on) would be thrilled if we can > get to the point of just steady-state. Perhaps if there was a good way to be sent a particular subset of PR:s? Unfortuantely the PR categories are not very granular. Something as simple = as=20 being able to subscribe to PR:s that match a regexp could work. My experience (albeight with a smaller bug database) is that generally, as= =20 soon as you expect people to manually poll some web site, things move more= =20 slowly. If you can manage a system where all the user has to do is process = is=20 mailbox, it becomes easier for all parties to get things done. In order for= =20 that to work, some method is need to minimize the amount of incoming E-Mail= =20 that the potential contributor is not interested in (otherwise you just get= =20 tired of weeding through it all). Also related to this: it may just be me, but how does GNATS even handle=20 mailouts to begin with? I always get the initial response from GNATS that a= =20 PR has been registered, but mostly I never see any automatic mailouts in=20 response to PR updates. I have not identifier exactly what is going on, but= =20 if other people are having this problem it might contribute to difficulty=20 getting feedback from users. Once again I tend to like the system where all= I=20 have to do is read my inbox, instead of manually keeping track of a list of= =20 PR:s I am somehow interested in. (This goes both from the POV of being an=20 original submitter, and from the POV of trying to process PR:s.) Also, individual users being able to add themselves as an interested party = (cc=20 in bugzilla speak, nosy in roundup speak, etc) to PR:s and such would help,= =20 or configure per-user settings for mailout, etc. I really don't want to start some kind of holy war on bug management softwa= re,=20 but I have to say that from the submitter POV I have always felt GNATS does= =20 not seem to be the most flexible system around (except for what seems to be= =20 very good E-Mail integration). > I think most get committed because a committer sees a PR come in on the > mailing list and grabs it. Much less often do committers go through the > database looking for things to fix. Again, the lousy "search/browse" > capabilities of the existing tool let us down here. That is exactly consistent with my experience in similar situations, and wh= at=20 I refer to above. =2D-=20 / Peter Schuller PGP userID: 0xE9758B7D or 'Peter Schuller ' Key retrieval: Send an E-Mail to getpgpkey@scode.org E-Mail: peter.schuller@infidyne.com Web: http://www.scode.org --nextPart1532281.ZVzCsaMe5P Content-Type: application/pgp-signature; name=signature.asc Content-Description: This is a digitally signed message part. -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v2.0.4 (FreeBSD) iD8DBQBHiQXKDNor2+l1i30RAupyAKC70yFXuFAgwLATMplryTZnO26vUwCeNw5E ixsKyQoMLy8cxpZXPV2lBJo= =4Ugi -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --nextPart1532281.ZVzCsaMe5P--