From owner-freebsd-hackers@FreeBSD.ORG Wed Jan 18 01:42:34 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 AEB2C106564A; Wed, 18 Jan 2012 01:42:34 +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 7995D8FC14; Wed, 18 Jan 2012 01:42:34 +0000 (UTC) Received: by pbdx13 with SMTP id x13so3101948pbd.13 for ; Tue, 17 Jan 2012 17:42:34 -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=nf24LyUbqHTqZAoGHgKxON/EIRQM4Nelm9dnwHJyWfs=; b=NT++sv2nkbCuqL+oczZYGhJdXyGpKTobXHSDF+fVI8iGCJRGCL+fsPyImG9HXlozn6 vvb6lYTolS9RroyMdeZbI+VNDHSC3xCdeGUDKW6efXQG1Huo6IZGErmgnahuWcYiEo0a dScQ1MEMX/Yxnw5oxf+tkBx7J1jbZ7Qj83Xzc= Received: by 10.68.190.101 with SMTP id gp5mr39360065pbc.31.1326850954203; Tue, 17 Jan 2012 17:42:34 -0800 (PST) MIME-Version: 1.0 Sender: mozolevsky@gmail.com Received: by 10.68.28.199 with HTTP; Tue, 17 Jan 2012 17:41:53 -0800 (PST) In-Reply-To: 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 01:41:53 +0000 X-Google-Sender-Auth: tjqLNeQG_j7CmpjvVk2d-iwgQu8 Message-ID: To: Eitan Adler Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Cc: Ian Lepore , Andriy Gapon , 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 01:42:34 -0000 On 18 January 2012 01:11, Eitan Adler wrote: > It takes time to review and test patches. There are a lot of people > that think "it only takes 30 seconds to download the patch, apply, and > commit." =C2=A0This is just not true. I fully understand that and it is not what I was saying, what I was saying was about the patches that were being plainly ignored/allowed to go stale. What you said below is perfectly reasonable once a committer is actively involved in dealing with a patch, then I, and anyone else for that matter, would be very reasonably expected to be involved in the process and understands that someone else is working on the issue you've address. The problem, however, lies in the time between a patch is submitted and is "picked up", if the latter ever occurs!.. That is where the discouragement occurs. [snip] > And this assumes the patch was perfect, there really was a bug, and > everyone thinks things through properly. =C2=A0The process take anywhere > from half an hour for obvious fixes to multiple days =C2=A0in addition to > the committer's work, school, and family obligations.. I hope I've address what you say here just above :-) and wholeheartedly agree with everything else you've said, but you are addressing the problem from a different angle: nobody is ever going to disagree that _once_ someone has picked up a patch it will take them time to get it through whatever steps necessary. But, as I said above, it's getting to *this* stage that is the lengthy and a disheartening process... [snip] > If you have ideas to make this process easier or more efficient we are > all eager to hear them. I am especially interested to know what *I* > could do to help speed things along in areas I don't know well enough > to commit to. The problem, which I suspect is very difficult to overcome in what I call the "bazaar" environment, is the enforcement. One way to "encourage" people to fix their code would be to prevent them from committing to -CURRENT once they pass a certain threshold of "unattended" patches. Of course then, committers will be whinging that they'd be resigning if they can't commit to -CURRENT, but quite frankly, why should anyone have the commit privilege if they can't be bothered to address the bugs, are those people just using the FreeBSD project to boost their CV (with great powers comes great responsibility!)? -- Igor M. :-)