Date: Fri, 28 Jul 2006 15:27:28 +0200 From: Alexander Leidinger <Alexander@Leidinger.net> To: Robert Watson <rwatson@FreeBSD.org> Cc: hackers@FreeBSD.org, Joel Dahl <joel@FreeBSD.org> Subject: Re: cvs commit: www/en/projects/ideas index.sgml Message-ID: <20060728152728.3pwcc5glesc08c0k@netchild.homeip.net> In-Reply-To: <20060728133744.D56782@fledge.watson.org> References: <200607280705.k6S7585g094248@repoman.freebsd.org> <20060728092503.U4612@fledge.watson.org> <20060728142237.lhocfctqugoocc48@netchild.homeip.net> <20060728133744.D56782@fledge.watson.org>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
Quoting Robert Watson <rwatson@FreeBSD.org> (from Fri, 28 Jul 2006 =20 13:45:50 +0100 (BST)): > > On Fri, 28 Jul 2006, Alexander Leidinger wrote: > >>> BTW, a problem that has occurred a number of times in the past is =20 >>> that people have approached us with implementations of ideas in =20 >>> the idea list that it has later transpired we aren't actually =20 >>> interested in (sometimes at all). I think it might not be a bad =20 >>> idea to sprinkle the >> >> My impression is, that we lack some committers which not only have =20 >> time to review the submissions, but also have the necessary domain =20 >> specific knowledge at the same time. > > I suggest marking unreviewed ideas as unreviewed then. My biggest Which isn't entirely true. We filter incoming ideas (we at least =20 rejected one or two... after talking with the submitter), but we =20 aren't able to distinguish good looking but bad ideas from good =20 looking and good ideas. Some ideas are only rejectable by someone with =20 enough domain specific knowledge and look ok for most other people. So when do you think an entry is reviewed? How to determine whom to =20 ask for review and how to get this person interested enough for a =20 review? > concern is that we have people who come along, see the idea, implement > it, and it's then dropped on the floor because it turns out we didn't > really want it, but it was on the list. If we don't want it, we > shouldn't list it. If we're not sure if we want it, but think it might > be neat, then we should say that's why it's on the list, so as to avoid > misunderstandings. I agree. >> We need some reviewers here... while I'm able to come up with a =20 >> nice technical description of roughly expressed ideas (as long as I =20 >> get the idea), I'm not a TRB and as such aren't aware of every =20 >> implication. And some ideas are expressed in a way which make them =20 >> sound like it's "common knowledge to people which work in this =20 >> field" (ATM I refer to the NFS lockd in kernel implementation idea). > > Given that we can't get the user space code to work and don't have an > owner for it (it appears to be abandonware), I think moving it into the > kernel would be a disaster. Uhm... I'm withhin the implicit assumption that we first need to fix =20 NFS lockd (an entry before the "move into the kernel" entry)... ok, we =20 need to record dependencies here. >> So: helping hands are welcome! >> >> Thanks for taking some time to review some parts of the list. > > I'll try to take a look through the rest of them later today. Thanks, Alexander. --=20 Let me put it this way: today is going to be a learning experience. http://www.Leidinger.net Alexander @ Leidinger.net: PGP ID =3D B0063FE7 http://www.FreeBSD.org netchild @ FreeBSD.org : PGP ID =3D 72077137
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20060728152728.3pwcc5glesc08c0k>