From owner-freebsd-hackers@freebsd.org Mon Dec 4 17:04:34 2017 Return-Path: Delivered-To: freebsd-hackers@mailman.ysv.freebsd.org Received: from mx1.freebsd.org (mx1.freebsd.org [IPv6:2001:1900:2254:206a::19:1]) by mailman.ysv.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id CA3BAE5DC9C for ; Mon, 4 Dec 2017 17:04:34 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from wlosh@bsdimp.com) Received: from mail-it0-x232.google.com (mail-it0-x232.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4001:c0b::232]) (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 8CC71703CA for ; Mon, 4 Dec 2017 17:04:34 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from wlosh@bsdimp.com) Received: by mail-it0-x232.google.com with SMTP id f190so8278218ita.5 for ; Mon, 04 Dec 2017 09:04:34 -0800 (PST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=bsdimp-com.20150623.gappssmtp.com; s=20150623; h=mime-version:sender:in-reply-to:references:from:date:message-id :subject:to:cc; bh=9ma+Z6aYIfzw2syaxzahqqN+dJ6j2CyfF18np2NGV7E=; b=KOcSVhr0ryxzEnetyzsI7xc4XB02SEHW5JIAuwwKDzRrhZOx+VyiyL26MEDYrQ9jE/ UDuC5aM2Wl9kSkI+A5BAGsvdwNowen+MRl/yifmPVjdkc32D0N2k4NL+WL4HuWBJi5mB lP6nC8NNa0JNCDIWXRLjR0bgLpH+QrZYlcBDIOVjGAAe7QFlB6ZZQmps3AcI4BUoLiDf FJgq5IKwLjsuHxaZld86P5vrhBLdXFaLOF/CQCO6ro8xAkNXT2x+w6RbkDbTJaBnMcO8 bAneQjTISsfonuCFdnLKzabKPr87Xo3o21de0Sgyvm0UGSnygCn5wiJoblP4AuLwb0Yy 3O9w== X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:sender:in-reply-to:references:from :date:message-id:subject:to:cc; bh=9ma+Z6aYIfzw2syaxzahqqN+dJ6j2CyfF18np2NGV7E=; b=t+ZEwU9jl3os1e2wWUvjQjkRGXI32GnzBA+ujkA5DDoZsMNyQB21ezrQFvCDB4m3SL n2ae9iXWGZuDoYt5Bn0/Jfqym2pI9FRGdnSPEuN0ymFfypdL4EAYfg54pOeEYnBe6uQ4 hXV4E3BlAZ2gjDWlsKF6HP7TgjLoNbiuecWonaHg9STkBgIAXcMwLELwWNI8Elsqpcrl Vu+ou0TsGa5TX45hJtMDEYMTyUGiHOUgYDb+G13z89f+Dng5bs5zmNs8uWGVHPQspfLe Hyfkc5lh3nA6MzGcijEP4XI5OyT9Uq1VHzgr/5iss3CWyLrYbCznhDQ0PkHKTw6hluvL glqA== X-Gm-Message-State: AKGB3mJrEb60YGlRDjoCOygvKyLZW7jFUsz6XYjsdk7N0KLOuttBDTMX KzgzmwVZxHvNcINbXX2wz0XxR9ZJ4ecu3KK7iFUBNg== X-Google-Smtp-Source: AGs4zMZo01FAHgpaw/bOF/VpuV0hf1bf0O5QjV+I0KNy3bKrgmJFhUDG/fqoIYieXjFw7yFm09EdGHkkq0oPUC9Wa9c= X-Received: by 10.107.52.140 with SMTP id b134mr13066006ioa.291.1512407073377; Mon, 04 Dec 2017 09:04:33 -0800 (PST) MIME-Version: 1.0 Sender: wlosh@bsdimp.com Received: by 10.79.108.204 with HTTP; Mon, 4 Dec 2017 09:04:32 -0800 (PST) X-Originating-IP: [50.253.109.65] In-Reply-To: References: <201712011318.vB1DIk4E069397@donotpassgo.dyslexicfish.net> From: Warner Losh Date: Mon, 4 Dec 2017 10:04:32 -0700 X-Google-Sender-Auth: 7w4YC8DJr7mIzgKTNsTPxsCz3x0 Message-ID: Subject: Re: Getting PRs fixed To: Yuri Pankov Cc: freebsd-hackers Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable X-Content-Filtered-By: Mailman/MimeDel 2.1.25 X-BeenThere: freebsd-hackers@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.25 Precedence: list List-Id: Technical Discussions relating to FreeBSD List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 04 Dec 2017 17:04:34 -0000 On Sun, Dec 3, 2017 at 11:16 PM, Yuri Pankov wrote: > On Fri, Dec 1, 2017 at 09:39:22AM -0800, Freddie Cash wrote: > >> On Fri, Dec 1, 2017 at 6:46 AM, Rebecca Cran >> wrote: >> >> >>> On Dec 1, 2017, at 6:18 AM, Jamie Landeg-Jones >>>> >>> wrote: >>> >>>> >>>> I've been using FreeBSD both professionally and personally since >>>> 2.2.7-RELEASE and I've fixed various bugs over the years, but a year o= r >>>> so ago, I got fed up with the general indifference these last few year= s. >>>> >>> >>> I was just thinking about getting back into bug-busting for FreeBSD: a >>> few >>> years ago when we were using GNATS we had a team that did triage, >>> follow-ups etc. that made some progress. Was that effort wound-down wit= h >>> the move to Bugzilla, or is the team still active? >>> >>> >> =E2=80=8BI don't know about triage, as in determining priority for speci= fic bugs, >> but there is a team that goes through the bug database assigning bugs to >> individuals and teams, and updating the Subject: line to better reflect >> the >> issue in the bug. >> > > That's good and all, but in my quick walk through the current open PRs > against base system, there are a lots of PR with patches that just lie > there collecting dust, a lot of PRs that have been analyzed and should be > closed as "not a bug" or simply being more suited to be asked on question= s@, > and I don't see how I'd get someone to actually look at them -- so it's n= ot > like there's no interest in fixing bugs -- the number of patches in > bugtracker says there's a lot of interest, it's just somewhat hard to get > patches integrated. > As someone who has spent his time in the trenches of patch applying from PRs, I'd have to say things are decidedly mixed. About half of the patches have serious problems (obviously don't work, clearly break other cases, fix the wrong problem, no longer apply, etc). Once you get through that gauntlet, then you have the next round of issues to cope with: subtle problems introduced by the patch. I've been burned several times where I got a patch, it looked good and then when I committed it after light testing all hell broke loose. Or after I committed it some subsystem maintainer pops up and says it's a layering violation, or some other sin that breaks some interface contract that's implicit in the code, but not explicit. So maybe 1/4 of the patches have these issues like that. Then about 1/8 of the code has serious style issues that needs to be cleaned up, lest one get email from the style police, so that cleanup takes time. All told, maybe 10-15% of the patches there are good to go w/o further changes. About 10-15% need some work. 25-30% patches need some serious work as they break something subtle and half of the patches are just junk, not worth wasting time on. With odds like that, and the extra time, frustration and damage to one's reputation when you mess one up, is it any wonder there aren't more people bug busting like that? Warner P.S. This has been my consistent experience through the time on the project. Early days, middle and recently. I tried to pull all the awk patches in, only to discover that two of them fixed the test case, but broke something substantial in the kernel build (each in a different way) and had to be reverted from my branch. Automated testing would help, but we have no automated awk testing in the tree today. I should add it, but that's another barrier to entry: getting the test suite setup for awk, validating the code in the test suite, etc are non-trivial investments in time.