Date: Fri, 20 Aug 2004 22:58:35 +0200 From: Marc Fonvieille <blackend@freebsd.org> To: Bill Moran <wmoran@potentialtech.com> Cc: Giorgos Keramidas <keramida@freebsd.org> Subject: Re: To PR Senders Message-ID: <20040820205835.GH63041@abigail.blackend.org> In-Reply-To: <20040820103306.5f0ffb6f.wmoran@potentialtech.com> References: <20040820133029.GE63041@abigail.blackend.org> <20040820103306.5f0ffb6f.wmoran@potentialtech.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Fri, Aug 20, 2004 at 10:33:06AM -0400, Bill Moran wrote: > > There is some problematic ambiguity to this request. > > Section 4.3 of the article on submitting problem reprts: > http://www.freebsd.org/doc/en_US.ISO8859-1/articles/problem-reports/pr-writing.html > states > "Also note that while including small patches in a PR is generally all > right--particularly when they fix the problem described in the PR--large > patches and especially new code which may require substantial review > before committing should be placed on a web or ftp server" > I'd say that text is written with src/ in mind, new .c code may require different sort of review than doc source. Well I know it's a bad explaination... > While I agree with everything that's been stated here (both in your email > Marc, as well as the article) the question for anyone submitting a PR > becomes: "Based on these recommendations, do I attach it or post it?" > > The best advice I've heard so far was (unfortunately) relegated to PS > status in your email: > > > PS: Of course do not send your 1MB patch :)) > > So, now I know that patches of 1M or larger are not attached, while those > of smaller size may(?) be attached ;) Fact is, I don't _really_ know > what the upper limit is (size-wise) for attaching vs. posting. And the > reference to "new code/substantial review" is (unfortunately) even more > ambiguous! > I don't want to give a strict upper limit, I'd prefer to let people a bit free and find by themselves what is "too much". > I guess what I'm saying is that for someone like myself (who has and > intends to continue submitting patches, but has never been on the > other side of PR handling) it's difficult to know what the best way > to submit a patch is. My goal as a patch submitter is to make the > job of the comitter as easy as possible, so he/she can focus on the > _content_ of my patch, not the steps required to extract and unmangle > it. > > I don't have the knowledge to make exact recommendations, but perhaps > a documented rule of thumb along these lines would help: > > "Patches in excess of 200k, or which contain over 50 lines of completely > new content, should not be attached to the PR, but should be placed on > an ftp/web server and the URL included. Patches below these limits > should always be attached to the PR." > I don't think giving a limit based on lines number is a good idea. 200k is too much, from my point of view, maybe 50k could be the maximum... but some may say gzip exists... The reason of my original mail was the fact a lot of recent submissions could be attached with the PRs; committers just ignored/missed these PRs mostly cause of the URL thing. I'd add that 90% of doc PRs can contain the fix/patch. The TODO list for 5.3 will use PRs for tracking purpose and it's important to avoid the use of URL when there is no real reason to do it. > I understand that it may be difficult to reach a consensus on exactly > what limits to set, but I think it would make things a little clearer > for folks like me. > I'm waiting for bugmeisters opinion on this point. Marc
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20040820205835.GH63041>