From owner-svn-src-stable@freebsd.org Fri Mar 30 03:40:09 2018 Return-Path: Delivered-To: svn-src-stable@mailman.ysv.freebsd.org Received: from mx1.freebsd.org (mx1.freebsd.org [IPv6:2610:1c1:1:606c::19:1]) by mailman.ysv.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id E07C7F6C46F; Fri, 30 Mar 2018 03:40:08 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from araujobsdport@gmail.com) Received: from mail-lf0-x242.google.com (mail-lf0-x242.google.com [IPv6:2a00:1450:4010:c07::242]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (Client CN "smtp.gmail.com", Issuer "Google Internet Authority G2" (verified OK)) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 3C6A673D40; Fri, 30 Mar 2018 03:40:08 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from araujobsdport@gmail.com) Received: by mail-lf0-x242.google.com with SMTP id m200-v6so5231511lfm.4; Thu, 29 Mar 2018 20:40:08 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20161025; h=mime-version:reply-to:in-reply-to:references:from:date:message-id :subject:to:cc; bh=wycf9SlEdA6CizNrmYdfZttOaK8xyj8ilh9wlXEZ2IM=; b=Ol4h2DTjk5Lga0bCxR2fnsTzTnmD2ULIv0qe7hUDafZfPV7NEUYsM+WKfDs+kgW7Z2 OXlX7QwrP+wBgue9OXNCmxZ2/JJnCOTLwgPamzMfi59JzSg1STWFgPlu2gw0SuFpWFkO p5/l1dpgHPkgt+n2BBwJOM+9qsIGIH/E768SCifBb8xWHUKu5uugGuIHcX4CLLMxdBqx 6p4HRzIhhgnT+oSyFyVsHxBm9Ou6Di4yLJ1lQecZogWO+Jwp3MCUTZGwnSoppTxE7N78 13GqjRolTTPnHWo3wEnL+UGtPBRcq2egHYK8WdYp9fKB2bsaNfuFb3et/VLlr3ih3h3f yDng== X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:reply-to:in-reply-to:references :from:date:message-id:subject:to:cc; bh=wycf9SlEdA6CizNrmYdfZttOaK8xyj8ilh9wlXEZ2IM=; b=le10H6f9I4GXoijvxqVZASryKtS9UlL2JfguytNIXEFXGb3MpRvYYKcyRA2T9ybGng Ks6YHhtaOTubjhGOoSC+HEn2oxGJiLYK3JPm757TBMM8AMbna9dZUcOGvID3mAbzIXpz HQFr59KbOABpyAohn3jCwWva4wYDVLD7lSHi8Yv0gQvFNq/0o2cZEFZ9usB91SZYwGLD 9mRsxNgBUBbwyB/LjfSjpP8TbkX9P7gd61np1ybmxdl3vD5zblw+QAwjgYPCzVvEDFs9 +qDmRLYDgK7i4KRl089GS31AcUIWxUJQ+iMAfvJvPU4J3ettMaSuRzl31fKPnXWA2XMl hQ4A== X-Gm-Message-State: AElRT7FyaklI5vgxtDiR5IjKHC25w1lC/JJyNU2GINekgRnghTJsD2an BhaXSx0nosRAxycMW/TwKwlUVZL30ib6kjOcMjXImQ== X-Google-Smtp-Source: AIpwx4+KdBDqKHNjPPjQQyAitEJn9xj4X0NELU7Mw+WuC/WJu5XIKE4tIdUH1m3zgwlZp05FK1JibUL9e9D8ctUxuf8= X-Received: by 10.46.154.205 with SMTP id p13mr6852713ljj.60.1522381206820; Thu, 29 Mar 2018 20:40:06 -0700 (PDT) MIME-Version: 1.0 Received: by 2002:a19:a74f:0:0:0:0:0 with HTTP; Thu, 29 Mar 2018 20:40:06 -0700 (PDT) Reply-To: araujo@freebsd.org In-Reply-To: <20180330030443.GA15201@lonesome.com> References: <1522340373.49673.112.camel@freebsd.org> <201803291633.w2TGXinX064128@pdx.rh.CN85.dnsmgr.net> <20180330030443.GA15201@lonesome.com> From: Marcelo Araujo Date: Fri, 30 Mar 2018 11:40:06 +0800 Message-ID: Subject: Re: bug triaging (was: Re: svn commit: r331728 - in stable/11/etc: . rc.d) To: Mark Linimon Cc: "Rodney W. Grimes" , Ian Lepore , src-committers@freebsd.org, svn-src-stable@freebsd.org, svn-src-all@freebsd.org, svn-src-stable-11@freebsd.org Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" X-Content-Filtered-By: Mailman/MimeDel 2.1.25 X-BeenThere: svn-src-stable@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.25 Precedence: list List-Id: SVN commit messages for all the -stable branches of the src tree List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 30 Mar 2018 03:40:09 -0000 2018-03-30 11:04 GMT+08:00 Mark Linimon : > This is addressed to developers in general, not just rgrimes, but he > made the comments, so ... > > On Thu, Mar 29, 2018 at 09:33:44AM -0700, Rodney W. Grimes wrote: > > It seems that the Phabricator review system is somewhat dysfunctional > > in that actual review is only happening in some cases. Some people > > have even stated they flat out hate it. > > I will have to state as someone who has spent a great deal of time on > classifying/triaging bug reports in this project, that the attitude > that some developers have that "I am not going to use tool xyz" is both > disheartening and demotivating. I find it difficult to remember when I > triage: who it is that will or will not use which tool? > > Here: the plain facts are that our clearance rate for Phabriactor reviews, > for both src and doc, are far better than for Bugzilla. For ports, the > opposite is true. These are just facts. > > By and large IMHO phab is a plus. (Disclaimer: I personally hate the > web interface, it makes me want to pull out my few remaining hairs.) > But I do not see it going away. Nor, do I see bugzilla going away. > Some people like the workflow of the one, some like the other. > > > The problem is that most people are not notified that a review > > of a change is even in process until the commit lands, this is > > not a functional communications system. > > But many developers also ignore bug reports coming through Bugzilla, > echoed on the mailing lists. What is your constructive suggestion > here? Do we make subscribing to Phab reviews per src bit mandatory? > I would support it but imagine I would get a lot of pushback. > > > Requring us all to go sign up like imp@ did to receive all > > submitted reviews, imho, is also a non functional situation. > > So what is a constructive suggestion? > > (Fair warning, folks: I won't consider "get rid of Phabricator" or > "get rid of Bugzilla" as constructive.) > > mcl > IMHO, pre-review is very good, and as far as I have saw at least for "src", most of developers always ask somebody else's review, especially when you are touching an area that you are not very familiar with, or there is somebody that request review in that area because he/she is the maintainer, and/or for additional inputs. So it works pretty good. But in other hand, in the past years, there is a big flow of emails(post-review) for every each commit, and in most cases as I can see clearly, those post-reviews are in commits that change few lines, because those are easy to read and people can get very opinionated. Most of the developers that does the daily post-review, they do little or no real work at all. Personally we are losing some good approaches the project used to have, such like: 1) Now, shut up and code. Really. 2) Fix things and move forward. 3) bikeshed pop-up windows: +------------------------------------------------------------+ | Your email is about to be sent to several hundred thousand | | people, who will have to spend at least 10 seconds reading | | it before they can decide if it is interesting. At least | | two man-weeks will be spent reading your email. Many of | | the recipients will have to pay to download your email. | | | | Are you absolutely sure that your email is of sufficient | | importance to bother all these people ? | | | | [YES] [REVISE] [CANCEL] | +------------------------------------------------------------+ That MFC in question, I was the reviewer, if I committed it, it means I approved the review, the submitter is not a committer. It would applies in the same situation as "Approved by", If I review a commit from somebody else that has no commit bit in that particular area, it is implicit that I'm doing the "Approved by" and that person can commit with my blessing. So the fuss here is too big, because one or two developers believes they must be involved for every each change that other developers are working on. It just cannot work in that way, simple like that, instead to do microscopic post-review over other people's work and most of time without a single patch, save the time spent on write so many emails and send a patch, I do believe all the project will benefit more. Again, there is nothing wrong with PHA, that review was pretty much right, but unfortunately rgrimes didn't pay enough attention to that review, because is clear the submitter is not a commiter, I committed the patch, I was the reviewer, If I committed, it means I approved that. I don't know about you guys, but I will go back try to do something productive . Best, -- -- Marcelo Araujo (__)araujo@FreeBSD.org \\\'',)http://www.FreeBSD.org \/ \ ^ Power To Server. .\. /_)