Date: Thu, 3 Nov 2022 19:59:45 -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: <CANCZdfoS0=FRL_BXfUaauEs5AM8CPNhwe0wSM8FjXjaBDH%2BWzA@mail.gmail.com> In-Reply-To: <NG-HjAl--3-9@tutanota.com> References: <NG-5mKi--3-9@tutanota.com> <CACcTwYnDD86etzZhsW64t9fGnL%2Br2BXwZ=RDXGiJ7RP54mWfmw@mail.gmail.com> <NG-G41y--3-9@tutanota.com> <CANCZdfquUTHsCUwBttwCvzHO4Ght0-sNHrONmrse4Ug-Z-CZ5g@mail.gmail.com> <NG-HjAl--3-9@tutanota.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
[-- Attachment #1 --] On Thu, Nov 3, 2022, 7:39 PM <iio7@tutanota.com> wrote: > Nov 4, 2022, 01:34 by imp@bsdimp.com: > > > According to my data, reviews are up significantly since that email. > > > > I'm guessing you haven't been able to confirm anything has changed > because > > you've not actually looked for data, since it's trivially easy to find > that data. > > > No, I have looked. I never said that I didn't find anything. However, what > I was > suspecting to find was a set of rules put in place to prevent anything > like the > wireguard issue from happening again. > Your expectations are off. You need to look at the data. I guess my expectations were too high. Sure, things has improved, but > without > a clear set of rules - like ALL commits must be reviewed before going into > the > kernel, base, etc. - the same problem can happen again. > Now I know you are trolling... Nobody that's has done engineering for any length of time would expect reviews to catch all problems. That's at best wishful thinking and at worst a horribly toxic management culture. What has happened is that there is more review, the commits are generally much much smaller and more people are reading the commits after the fact. I half jokingly told a coworker recently the fastest way to find a problem in my code is to commit it since so many people read it, I get feedback right away. Again, these things are present in the data. There are way more tests than being committed than before. There is more CI coverage than before. There are efforts to greatly expand that. The layered approach gies a long way towards catching issues like this than before. Thinking promulgating some simplistic rule change is at best overly simplistic think and disingenuous trolling at worst. Warner Kind regards. > > > > > [-- Attachment #2 --] <div dir="auto"><div><br><br><div class="gmail_quote"><div dir="ltr" class="gmail_attr">On Thu, Nov 3, 2022, 7:39 PM <<a href="mailto:iio7@tutanota.com">iio7@tutanota.com</a>> wrote:<br></div><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex">Nov 4, 2022, 01:34 by <a href="mailto:imp@bsdimp.com" target="_blank" rel="noreferrer">imp@bsdimp.com</a>:<br> <br> > According to my data, reviews are up significantly since that email.<br> ><br> > I'm guessing you haven't been able to confirm anything has changed because<br> > you've not actually looked for data, since it's trivially easy to find that data.<br> ><br> No, I have looked. I never said that I didn't find anything. However, what I was<br> suspecting to find was a set of rules put in place to prevent anything like the<br> wireguard issue from happening again.<br></blockquote></div></div><div dir="auto"><br></div><div dir="auto">Your expectations are off. You need to look at the data.</div><div dir="auto"><br></div><div dir="auto"><div class="gmail_quote"><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex"> I guess my expectations were too high. Sure, things has improved, but without<br> a clear set of rules - like ALL commits must be reviewed before going into the<br> kernel, base, etc. - the same problem can happen again.<br></blockquote></div></div><div dir="auto"><br></div><div dir="auto">Now I know you are trolling...</div><div dir="auto"><br></div><div dir="auto">Nobody that's has done engineering for any length of time would expect reviews to catch all problems. That's at best wishful thinking and at worst a horribly toxic management culture.</div><div dir="auto"><br></div><div dir="auto">What has happened is that there is more review, the commits are generally much much smaller and more people are reading the commits after the fact. I half jokingly told a coworker recently the fastest way to find a problem in my code is to commit it since so many people read it, I get feedback right away.</div><div dir="auto"><br></div><div dir="auto">Again, these things are present in the data. There are way more tests than being committed than before. There is more CI coverage than before. There are efforts to greatly expand that. The layered approach gies a long way towards catching issues like this than before. Thinking promulgating some simplistic rule change is at best overly simplistic think and disingenuous trolling at worst.</div><div dir="auto"><br></div><div dir="auto">Warner</div><div dir="auto"><br></div><div dir="auto"><div class="gmail_quote"><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex"> Kind regards.<br> <br> <br> <br> <br> </blockquote></div></div></div>
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?CANCZdfoS0=FRL_BXfUaauEs5AM8CPNhwe0wSM8FjXjaBDH%2BWzA>