Date: Thu, 3 Nov 2022 19:32:45 -0600 From: Warner Losh <imp@bsdimp.com> To: iio7@tutanota.com Cc: Freebsd Hackers <freebsd-hackers@freebsd.org> Subject: Re: What is the status of the FreeBSD development process now? Message-ID: <CANCZdfoC7wSiWiL=x8i7tE5y=EKa1MZ0K9MsZne%2BidAQLKuCdw@mail.gmail.com> In-Reply-To: <NG-5mKi--3-9@tutanota.com> References: <NG-5mKi--3-9@tutanota.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
--000000000000a6c6ae05ec9b0da1 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" On Thu, Nov 3, 2022 at 6:47 PM <iio7@tutanota.com> wrote: > >> In OpenBSD, AFAIK, absolutely no code goes into the project without > >> at least 1 other people reviewing it and approving it. This can be > >> seen with the "OK" in the commits. > > > This has been shown to be false: > > > > > https://lists.freebsd.org/archives/freebsd-questions/2022-November/002192.html > > I have just replied to that. It's wrong. Take a look at the > OpenBSD commit logs. > Many, but not all, have the OK tag. My quick grep over the last 1000 commits I have in my tree suggests about 50%: % git log -1000 | grep -i ok | wc 524 2048 13689 which is the 1000 commits ending around May 1, 2022 this year (the last time I pulled an OpenBSD tree on the machine I have handy). > We're not talking about ports, the issue is related to the kernel and > base, etc. > Many, but not all, FreeBSD commits have a reviewer these days, and the main exceptions are trivial spelling errors, build botches and other similar things. A quick grep suggests of FreeBSD suggests similar numbers: % git log -1000 | grep 'Review' | wc 555 2163 22658 vs % git log -1000 HEAD~20000 | grep 'Review' | wc 319 1220 10577 which is in the time period a few months before the email in your original email. For both OpenBSD and FreeBSD this undercounts the number of commits that had a review that wasn't documented, or used a non-standard form to document, or (in FreeBSD) submitted by was reviewed by the committer, but no 'Reviewed by' was added to the commit because it was believed to be implicit (it is, but that's hard to grep). So it appears that the numbers are currently about the same and that different methods may give slightly different results because of the inconsistent marking of the tree. Because marking is inconsistent, and some actually reviewed changes go undocumented, it is really hard to say that one project is better than the others. Warner --000000000000a6c6ae05ec9b0da1 Content-Type: text/html; charset="UTF-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable <div dir=3D"ltr"><div dir=3D"ltr"><br></div><br><div class=3D"gmail_quote">= <div dir=3D"ltr" class=3D"gmail_attr">On Thu, Nov 3, 2022 at 6:47 PM <<a= href=3D"mailto:iio7@tutanota.com">iio7@tutanota.com</a>> wrote:<br></di= v><blockquote class=3D"gmail_quote" style=3D"margin:0px 0px 0px 0.8ex;borde= r-left:1px solid rgb(204,204,204);padding-left:1ex">>> In OpenBSD, AF= AIK, absolutely no code goes into the project without<br> >> at least 1 other people reviewing it and approving it. This can be= <br> >> seen with the "OK" in the commits.<br> <br> > This has been shown to be false:<br> ><br> > <a href=3D"https://lists.freebsd.org/archives/freebsd-questions/2022-N= ovember/002192.html" rel=3D"noreferrer" target=3D"_blank">https://lists.fre= ebsd.org/archives/freebsd-questions/2022-November/002192.html</a><br> <br> I have just replied to that. It's wrong. Take a look at the<br> OpenBSD commit logs.<br></blockquote><div><br></div><div>Many, but not all,= have the OK tag. My quick grep over the last 1000</div><div>commits I have= in my tree suggests about 50%:</div><div>% git log -1000 | grep -i ok | wc= <br>=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0524 =C2=A0 =C2=A02048 =C2=A0 13689<br></div><div>wh= ich is the 1000 commits ending around May 1, 2022 this year (the</div><div>= last time I pulled an OpenBSD tree on the machine I have handy).</div><div>= =C2=A0<br></div><blockquote class=3D"gmail_quote" style=3D"margin:0px 0px 0= px 0.8ex;border-left:1px solid rgb(204,204,204);padding-left:1ex">We're= not talking about ports, the issue is related to the kernel and<br> base, etc.<br></blockquote><div><br></div><div>Many, but not all, FreeBSD c= ommits have a reviewer these days, and</div><div>the main exceptions are tr= ivial spelling errors, build botches and other</div><div>similar things.</d= iv><div><br></div><div>A quick grep suggests of FreeBSD suggests similar nu= mbers:</div><div><br></div><div>% git log -1000 | grep 'Review' | w= c<br>=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0555 =C2=A0 =C2=A02163 =C2=A0 22658<br></div><div>v= s</div><div>%=C2=A0 git log -1000 HEAD~20000 | grep 'Review' | wc</= div><div>=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0319 =C2=A0 =C2=A01220 =C2=A0 10577<br></div></= div><div class=3D"gmail_quote"><br></div><div class=3D"gmail_quote">which i= s in the time period a few months before the email in your original</div><d= iv class=3D"gmail_quote">email.</div><div class=3D"gmail_quote"><br></div><= div class=3D"gmail_quote">For both OpenBSD and FreeBSD this undercounts the= number of commits</div><div class=3D"gmail_quote">that had a review that w= asn't documented, or used a non-standard form</div><div class=3D"gmail_= quote">to document, or (in FreeBSD) submitted by was reviewed by the commit= ter,</div><div class=3D"gmail_quote">but no 'Reviewed by' was added= to the commit because it was believed to</div><div class=3D"gmail_quote">b= e implicit (it is, but that's hard to grep).</div><div class=3D"gmail_q= uote"><br></div><div class=3D"gmail_quote">So it appears that the numbers a= re currently about the same and that different</div><div class=3D"gmail_quo= te">methods may give slightly different results because of the inconsistent= marking</div><div class=3D"gmail_quote">of the tree. Because marking is in= consistent, and some actually reviewed changes</div><div class=3D"gmail_quo= te">go undocumented, it is really hard to say that one project is better th= an the others.</div><div class=3D"gmail_quote"><br></div><div class=3D"gmai= l_quote">Warner<br></div></div> --000000000000a6c6ae05ec9b0da1--
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?CANCZdfoC7wSiWiL=x8i7tE5y=EKa1MZ0K9MsZne%2BidAQLKuCdw>