From owner-svn-src-all@freebsd.org Thu Nov 19 19:00:28 2020 Return-Path: Delivered-To: svn-src-all@mailman.nyi.freebsd.org Received: from mx1.freebsd.org (mx1.freebsd.org [IPv6:2610:1c1:1:606c::19:1]) by mailman.nyi.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 935D2472393; Thu, 19 Nov 2020 19:00:28 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from jhb@FreeBSD.org) Received: from smtp.freebsd.org (smtp.freebsd.org [96.47.72.83]) (using TLSv1.3 with cipher TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 (256/256 bits) key-exchange X25519 server-signature RSA-PSS (4096 bits) server-digest SHA256 client-signature RSA-PSS (4096 bits) client-digest SHA256) (Client CN "smtp.freebsd.org", Issuer "Let's Encrypt Authority X3" (verified OK)) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 4CcTXD3Z7tz3HJG; Thu, 19 Nov 2020 19:00:28 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from jhb@FreeBSD.org) Received: from John-Baldwins-MacBook-Pro.local (ralph.baldwin.cx [66.234.199.215]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (Client did not present a certificate) (Authenticated sender: jhb) by smtp.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id C26DA6A00; Thu, 19 Nov 2020 19:00:27 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from jhb@FreeBSD.org) Subject: Re: svn commit: r367695 - in head/sys: kern sys To: Mark Johnston Cc: Mateusz Guzik , src-committers@freebsd.org, svn-src-all@freebsd.org, svn-src-head@freebsd.org References: <202011141922.0AEJM2ld055995@repo.freebsd.org> <4f6f6b0a-e71c-a286-507e-abf2522c142c@FreeBSD.org> From: John Baldwin Autocrypt: addr=jhb@FreeBSD.org; keydata= mQGiBETQ+XcRBADMFybiq69u+fJRy/0wzqTNS8jFfWaBTs5/OfcV7wWezVmf9sgwn8TW0Dk0 c9MBl0pz+H01dA2ZSGZ5fXlmFIsee1WEzqeJzpiwd/pejPgSzXB9ijbLHZ2/E0jhGBcVy5Yo /Tw5+U/+laeYKu2xb0XPvM0zMNls1ah5OnP9a6Ql6wCgupaoMySb7DXm2LHD1Z9jTsHcAQMD /1jzh2BoHriy/Q2s4KzzjVp/mQO5DSm2z14BvbQRcXU48oAosHA1u3Wrov6LfPY+0U1tG47X 1BGfnQH+rNAaH0livoSBQ0IPI/8WfIW7ub4qV6HYwWKVqkDkqwcpmGNDbz3gfaDht6nsie5Z pcuCcul4M9CW7Md6zzyvktjnbz61BADGDCopfZC4of0Z3Ka0u8Wik6UJOuqShBt1WcFS8ya1 oB4rc4tXfSHyMF63aPUBMxHR5DXeH+EO2edoSwViDMqWk1jTnYza51rbGY+pebLQOVOxAY7k do5Ordl3wklBPMVEPWoZ61SdbcjhHVwaC5zfiskcxj5wwXd2E9qYlBqRg7QeSm9obiBCYWxk d2luIDxqaGJARnJlZUJTRC5vcmc+iGAEExECACAFAkTQ+awCGwMGCwkIBwMCBBUCCAMEFgID AQIeAQIXgAAKCRBy3lIGd+N/BI6RAJ9S97fvbME+3hxzE3JUyUZ6vTewDACdE1stFuSfqMvM jomvZdYxIYyTUpC5Ag0ERND5ghAIAPwsO0B7BL+bz8sLlLoQktGxXwXQfS5cInvL17Dsgnr3 1AKa94j9EnXQyPEj7u0d+LmEe6CGEGDh1OcGFTMVrof2ZzkSy4+FkZwMKJpTiqeaShMh+Goj XlwIMDxyADYvBIg3eN5YdFKaPQpfgSqhT+7El7w+wSZZD8pPQuLAnie5iz9C8iKy4/cMSOrH YUK/tO+Nhw8Jjlw94Ik0T80iEhI2t+XBVjwdfjbq3HrJ0ehqdBwukyeJRYKmbn298KOFQVHO EVbHA4rF/37jzaMadK43FgJ0SAhPPF5l4l89z5oPu0b/+5e2inA3b8J3iGZxywjM+Csq1tqz hltEc7Q+E08AAwUIAL+15XH8bPbjNJdVyg2CMl10JNW2wWg2Q6qdljeaRqeR6zFus7EZTwtX sNzs5bP8y51PSUDJbeiy2RNCNKWFMndM22TZnk3GNG45nQd4OwYK0RZVrikalmJY5Q6m7Z16 4yrZgIXFdKj2t8F+x613/SJW1lIr9/bDp4U9tw0V1g3l2dFtD3p3ZrQ3hpoDtoK70ioIAjjH aIXIAcm3FGZFXy503DOA0KaTWwvOVdYCFLm3zWuSOmrX/GsEc7ovasOWwjPn878qVjbUKWwx Q4QkF4OhUV9zPtf9tDSAZ3x7QSwoKbCoRCZ/xbyTUPyQ1VvNy/mYrBcYlzHodsaqUDjHuW+I SQQYEQIACQUCRND5ggIbDAAKCRBy3lIGd+N/BCO8AJ9j1dWVQWxw/YdTbEyrRKOY8YZNwwCf afMAg8QvmOWnHx3wl8WslCaXaE8= Message-ID: <617c0b5a-8295-8c53-ff18-6c7a5ace8a68@FreeBSD.org> Date: Thu, 19 Nov 2020 11:00:26 -0800 User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10.13; rv:68.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/68.6.0 MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Language: en-US Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-BeenThere: svn-src-all@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.34 Precedence: list List-Id: "SVN commit messages for the entire src tree \(except for " user" and " projects" \)" List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 19 Nov 2020 19:00:28 -0000 On 11/18/20 8:52 PM, Mark Johnston wrote: > On Wed, Nov 18, 2020 at 03:37:36PM -0800, John Baldwin wrote: >> On 11/18/20 2:16 PM, Mateusz Guzik wrote: >>> On 11/17/20, John Baldwin wrote: >>>> On 11/14/20 11:22 AM, Mateusz Guzik wrote: >>> Interested parties can check the consumer (also seen in the diff) to >>> see this is for consistency. I don't think any comments are warranted >>> in the header. >> >> I did read the consumer, and there didn't seem tremendous value in the >> extra line there. >> >>>> These changes would benefit from review. >>>> >>> >>> I don't think it's feasible to ask for review for everything lest it >>> degardes to rubber stamping and I don't think this change warranted >>> it, regardless of the cosmetic issues which can always show up. >> >> That is not consistent with the direction the project is moving. If you >> check the commit logs of other high-volume committers such as markj@, >> kib@, or myself, you will find that a substantial number of those commits >> are reviewed (typically in phabricator) without preventing us from >> making useful progress. Also, while the previous core did not mandate >> reviews, we moved closer to it when the Pre-Commit Review chapter was >> added to the Committer's Guide: >> >> https://www.freebsd.org/doc/en_US.ISO8859-1/articles/committers-guide/pre-commit-review.html >> >> In the related thread on developers@ we indicated that while weren't yet >> making pre-commit review mandatory, we collectively want to move in that >> direction. > > With regard to the future direction of src development, I would propose > a middle ground. Most, if not all, changes should get a Phabricator > review. There should be some minimum period between creation of that > review and a commit. The developer should make some effort to cc active > committers to the code. Some areas of the tree will have stricter > rules, but in general absence of feedback means that it's ok to commit. > Exceptions might apply to build fixes, etc.. This still imposes some > friction on the development process, but I have trouble seeing why > someone's contibution might be gated on their ability to commit at a > moment's notice. Mmm, I think I agree fully with this, and that perhaps the terminology is not clear as different folks have different perceptions of what "mandatory reviews" means perhaps. I know that some projects I work with have a fully "mandatory" requirement (OpenSSL seems to), and others have some exceptions (the "obvious" rule in FSF projects like GDB which the note in the committers guide does include a variant of). It is true though that in practice sometimes changes just time out due to lack of review (the OCF refactor is one of those in which I was able to get some partial review of some pieces or some of the concepts, but not the change as a whole). I do think we want to be in a place where we do at least seek review for most changes with an understanding that a change can "timeout" on review and be merged without always having review approval. > There are some technical issues around Phabricator that would need to be > ironed out before this is really doable. For me, the main one is that > email notifications are all-or-nothing: I would very much like to be > able to get email for each new review without automatically being > subscribed. That would indeed be interesting. In all of the Projects I've worked with using GH or e-mail, it does seem to be all-or-nothing if you are on the notify list. Hmm, looks like you can create a Herald rule to do this btw. Let's see if this works: https://reviews.freebsd.org/H138 -- John Baldwin