From owner-freebsd-hackers@FreeBSD.ORG Wed Jan 18 00:16:44 2012 Return-Path: Delivered-To: freebsd-hackers@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.freebsd.org (mx1.freebsd.org [IPv6:2001:4f8:fff6::34]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id D2DC7106564A for ; Wed, 18 Jan 2012 00:16:44 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from mozolevsky@gmail.com) Received: from mail-pw0-f54.google.com (mail-pw0-f54.google.com [209.85.160.54]) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9CFC68FC0A for ; Wed, 18 Jan 2012 00:16:44 +0000 (UTC) Received: by pbdx13 with SMTP id x13so3057788pbd.13 for ; Tue, 17 Jan 2012 16:16:44 -0800 (PST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=mime-version:sender:in-reply-to:references:from:date :x-google-sender-auth:message-id:subject:to:cc:content-type :content-transfer-encoding; bh=QDpGBPqauedksfAUvd3CM/CQPkUcTW73RM3uJMl6Obg=; b=QYruoJOM0ncWgENMu9RWvuvxcz6KrkxfBUFH7LtA33oV34b3AeFtDALmYCeqsDq7uh KnGkugLd8dpTmgwUBDaOoal8aDGPyQFqjkmDgJFFlOqYvElGGdtBEE4pDNUhgpl8jCJ4 ceRAPwbKMZ5PwNqZAbG08d1pXmn01yNZRruFU= Received: by 10.68.190.101 with SMTP id gp5mr38769280pbc.31.1326845804137; Tue, 17 Jan 2012 16:16:44 -0800 (PST) MIME-Version: 1.0 Sender: mozolevsky@gmail.com Received: by 10.68.28.199 with HTTP; Tue, 17 Jan 2012 16:16:03 -0800 (PST) In-Reply-To: <4F160B99.1060001@FreeBSD.org> References: <4F15C44F.1030208@freebsd.org> <1326836797.1669.234.camel@revolution.hippie.lan> <4F16019F.2060300@FreeBSD.org> <1326843399.1669.249.camel@revolution.hippie.lan> <4F160B99.1060001@FreeBSD.org> From: Igor Mozolevsky Date: Wed, 18 Jan 2012 00:16:03 +0000 X-Google-Sender-Auth: gRYIfcMcK07_ctZE_ZPVn9TK-GU Message-ID: To: Andriy Gapon Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Cc: Ian Lepore , freebsd-hackers@freebsd.org Subject: Re: FreeBSD has serious problems with focus, longevity, and lifecycle X-BeenThere: freebsd-hackers@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: Technical Discussions relating to FreeBSD List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 18 Jan 2012 00:16:44 -0000 On 18 January 2012 00:00, Andriy Gapon wrote: > Just a note: the next best thing you can to _not_ have a patch committed = is to > just open a PR and stop at that. =C2=A0The best thing being not sharing t= he patch at > all :-) [snip] > Some things that help: > - send a problem description and a patch (or a short description and a li= nk to a > PR) to a relevant mailing list > - maintain a discussion of the patch if it arises > - try to be interesting and keep the interested folks hooked > - find some folks who recently committed stuff in the area of the patch a= nd > contact them directly > - don't just wait for too long, remind about yourself and the patch, try > different mailing lists/people > - never give up > - stay technical, never get bitter or overly emotional > - don't refuse when offered a commit bit :-) Seriously, WTF is the point of having a PR system that allows patches to be submitted??! When I submit a patch I fix *your* code (not yours personally, but you get my gist). No other project requires a non-committer to be so ridiculously persistent in order to get a patch through. Such system is plainly wrong---it simply discourages people from sending "this works for me"(TM) fixes. The committers have to realise three things: they can and do write broken code now and then, most people who write patches to help the fBSD along don't have the time to become full time committers (otherwise they'd already be, right?), and there's only so many times one is willing to bang their head against a wall with no results---as Einstein pointed out "Insanity: doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results"... I'm not saying that responding to reasonable requests from people who are in the process of testing and committing the patch, but expecting the end-users to chase committers to have a fix included is plainly wrong!.. -- Igor M.