Skip site navigation (1)Skip section navigation (2)
Date:      Mon, 11 Jul 2011 17:50:44 -0400
From:      Arnaud Lacombe <lacombar@gmail.com>
To:        Steve Kargl <sgk@troutmask.apl.washington.edu>
Cc:        Adrian Chadd <adrian@freebsd.org>, FreeBSD Current <freebsd-current@freebsd.org>, "Hartmann, O." <ohartman@zedat.fu-berlin.de>, arrowdodger <6yearold@gmail.com>, freebsd-questions@freebsd.org
Subject:   Re: Heavy I/O blocks FreeBSD box for several seconds
Message-ID:  <CACqU3MVpvGa7_sKh=5jL87q65-WJtVf=rQ2cUgqB79H62Foqtg@mail.gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <CACqU3MUZC5GO-_oSkE3PFk3XQPWHn8XyD7XsG5xamD8hjjHh4w@mail.gmail.com>
References:  <20110706162811.GA68436@troutmask.apl.washington.edu> <CACqU3MVLr5VXRovs1uV%2BzHazJi2rrjE9Sp3XzsCPJ0Un06pmDQ@mail.gmail.com> <20110706193636.GA69550@troutmask.apl.washington.edu> <4E14CCE5.4050906@zedat.fu-berlin.de> <CAJ-VmomNcbGggbQePi2kBC7uRJm3BenMNKjsqkH5hFLqudsCvg@mail.gmail.com> <20110707015151.GB71966@troutmask.apl.washington.edu> <CAJ-VmongFDGi0amaqod5_NBQcH%2BguA5QMXtttCjTD=ccB==%2BUQ@mail.gmail.com> <CACqU3MVv-YpttXWYnvraR3PT9nh9P1AWMxoXJPevMRhNt4cr5g@mail.gmail.com> <CAJ-VmokC%2BpzoB_x31UGSNt2oRLXfzOK9aXhCMR3FBm7iGEyaAQ@mail.gmail.com> <CACqU3MXVdQfYEBNb9OLnt7CudiBRdvaq3Cd_HXBC8ZrCpmRFvg@mail.gmail.com> <20110711204049.GA98996@troutmask.apl.washington.edu> <CACqU3MUZC5GO-_oSkE3PFk3XQPWHn8XyD7XsG5xamD8hjjHh4w@mail.gmail.com>

next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
Hi,

[re-sent publicly, I did not "Replied-to-all":)]

On Mon, Jul 11, 2011 at 5:38 PM, Arnaud Lacombe <lacombar@gmail.com> wrote:
> Hi,
>
> On Mon, Jul 11, 2011 at 4:40 PM, Steve Kargl
> <sgk@troutmask.apl.washington.edu> wrote:
>> On Mon, Jul 11, 2011 at 04:33:44PM -0400, Arnaud Lacombe wrote:
>>>
>>> For the record, I would like to see enforced public review for _every_
>>> patch *before* it is checked in, as a strong rule. gcc system is
>>> particularly interesting. But it is not likely to happen in FreeBSD
>>> where FreeBSD committers are clearly more free than other at
>>> checking-in un-publicly-reviewed stuff (especially _bad_ stuff).
>>>
>>> This would of course apply even to long-time committers, no matter how
>>> it hurt their ego (which I definitively do not care about).
>>>
>>
>> As a long time GCC committer, I think that you have grossly
>> over-simplified the GCC review process and how a submitted
>> patch is approved for committing.
>>
> Yes.
>
Just to provide information more information than these sterile mails,
here is the gcc contribution guidelines:

http://gcc.gnu.org/contribute.html

 - Arnaud



Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?CACqU3MVpvGa7_sKh=5jL87q65-WJtVf=rQ2cUgqB79H62Foqtg>