Date: Thu, 9 Feb 2023 20:14:07 +0000 From: David Chisnall <theraven@FreeBSD.org> To: Warner Losh <imp@bsdimp.com> Cc: Mateusz Guzik <mjguzik@gmail.com>, freebsd-hackers <freebsd-hackers@freebsd.org> Subject: Re: CFT: snmalloc as libc malloc Message-ID: <CFB63B7B-237F-4E93-8422-7A0D3CEC9702@FreeBSD.org> In-Reply-To: <CANCZdfr2jGR%2B8oUNXGrudwqN447B0kjTn8iCcJ1484SaoXz1NQ@mail.gmail.com> References: <2f3dcda0-5135-290a-2dff-683b2e9fe271@FreeBSD.org> <CAGudoHFYMLk6EDrSxLiWFNBoYyTKXfHLAUhZC%2BRF4eUE-rip8Q@mail.gmail.com> <E140A3A2-5C4A-4458-B365-AD693AB853E8@FreeBSD.org> <CANCZdfr2jGR%2B8oUNXGrudwqN447B0kjTn8iCcJ1484SaoXz1NQ@mail.gmail.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On 9 Feb 2023, at 19:46, Warner Losh <imp@bsdimp.com> wrote: >=20 > And that is why we can't just start using submodules. They are not = automatically used. They are not used automatically, but if we were using them then we would = have infrastructure in the build system for ensuring that they exist and = checking them out if they are not. =20 I have written some (trivial) scripts to do this in a dev container = recently for another project, the developer experience there is go to = github, hit ., hit =E2=80=98open in code space=E2=80=99, start writing = code in the browser. =20 I didn=E2=80=99t do something like that here because I didn't want this = tree to contain things that I definitely couldn=E2=80=99t upstream and = you=E2=80=99ve made it quite clear that upstreaming will require me to = do something different. > People have to do different things that need to be publicized and well = documented. As with anything involving revision control. > And there are about a half a dozen decisions that need to be made = about the details of their use, many of which have no clear obvious = choice for the project. Without a good plan, clear comms and good docs = it will be a support nightmare.=20 Something I would be happy to work on, but the message that I = consistently get is =E2=80=98we won=E2=80=99t use submodules, we are not = open to a plan to use submodules=E2=80=99. > Now please stop making these passive agressive comments about = submodules. All they do is demotivate me to work on the plans to adopt = them. There are a lot of details, many of which need to be play tested, = before we can even get a plan to adopt. The snarky comments are why I = quit working on things a year ago... they don't move the ball forward = and just piss people off... I will very happily stop making comments about submodules if there is = either: - A working group that I can participate in to propose a plan for using = them. Or even a willingness, if I write a plan for using submodules, = for it to be discussed and not rejected out of hand. - An alternative proposal that doesn=E2=80=99t have the downsides that = we currently have (for example, forcing everyone to duplicate the = history of all every LLVM version that FreeBSD ships in a git clone, = difficulty of CI testing contrib components in isolation, complex steps = to import a new version from upstream, and so on), or worse down-sides = than submodules (e.g. depending on additional tooling that doesn=E2=80=99t= integrate with other tools, impossibility of using the tooling on some = platforms, massive clone sizes, and so on) I am frustrated by the fact that the project has real problems that can = be solved by submodules, does not want to use them, and does not want to = solve them in another way either. I don=E2=80=99t particularly like = submodules, I just like the problems that are caused by not using them = even less. David
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?CFB63B7B-237F-4E93-8422-7A0D3CEC9702>