Date: Sat, 20 Jul 2024 21:54:36 -0600 From: Warner Losh <imp@bsdimp.com> To: cglogic <cglogic@protonmail.com> Cc: FreeBSD CURRENT <freebsd-current@freebsd.org> Subject: Re: Long time outdated jemalloc Message-ID: <CANCZdfoGFbqTP8g-VRXazddp6nvTSZAEGuJka8Yf0K4D9TW6Rg@mail.gmail.com> In-Reply-To: <JMop194FY0dunvPcvTWd7CqQODh_xgJC_MiZ8meLQg7pbojMWuygQQP4I79oMQrgg598rSvVv36YfUVrWKkhsvrgEPIRp_GGWco3KQcbd-I=@protonmail.com> References: <JMop194FY0dunvPcvTWd7CqQODh_xgJC_MiZ8meLQg7pbojMWuygQQP4I79oMQrgg598rSvVv36YfUVrWKkhsvrgEPIRp_GGWco3KQcbd-I=@protonmail.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
--000000000000c3734e061db9e3f9 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable On Sat, Jul 20, 2024 at 1:59=E2=80=AFAM cglogic <cglogic@protonmail.com> wr= ote: > Hello FreeBSD community, > > After Jason Evans stepped aside from maintaining jemalloc in FreeBSD, > it's not updating in time anymore. > Version 5.3.0 was released May 6, 2022 and FreeBSD still not imported it > into the tree. > > There is a pending review https://reviews.freebsd.org/D41421 from Aug 11, > 2023. > I'm successfully running FreeBSD/amd64 system with D41421 applied for 8 > months, as well as many other people. > > Can it be reviewed and committed to CURRENT? > Or, if there is no committers willing to do it, can commit bit be given t= o > submitter or another person willing to do this? > > It's very disappointing when users spend their time to fill such gaps and > their efforts just ignored by the developers. > Every year FreeBSD Community Survey asking about user experience in > contributing to FreeBSD. > Here you can see an example of such contributing. > > First, thank you for being persistent and continuing to bring it up. It's important to do that to make sure this (and your many other) contribution doesn't fall on the floor. And to be fair, we're only 3 months since the last update. Still, quite a bit longer than you should have to wait, but not nearly the year the original date suggests. And this is a perfect storm of "how the project is bad at accepting contributions": (1) The original submission was close to the 14 branch creation time. This meant that we weren't well prepared to look at it since it is such an invasive change (at least on its surface). It also slowed the initial response... (2) There was a number of back and forth requests for changes, which took time to sort out... (3) The size of this is huge, well beyond the capacity of Phabricator to review accurately... (4) It's a vendor import. That means we can't just drop the Phabricator review into the tree... (5) It's phabricator: this is a great tool for developers, but we have a terrible track record of using it for intake from new contributors. We don't have any oversight at all over this tool, at there's at best tepid and luke warm attempts to look for drop balls. All of these things are a terrible experience. I can only apologize. These days, we might steer this towards github, but the 'vendor import' means you really need someone on the inside, or you need to be on the inside to make that work. So, how to move forward? Well, I'd like to propose the following: (1) submit all the other Phabricator reviews you have open (they are mostly good, or close to good) to github. Github is being actively managed and will make it faster to get things it. It's a much better tool for new contributors (and even frequent contributors of smallish things). (2) I should do an vendor import of 5.3.0 from github, and do the merge to a branch and push that to github. You can then layer on your changes and those can be reviewed more closely as a pull request against the branch I push. I suspect that most of the issues are sorted out already (3) I'll land it via that route... And, if the sum of the other pull requests and this are good (and I suspect they will be), then we can talk about commit bits and such. It's experiences like this which is why I'm trying to stand up github pull requests as a reliable way to get things and and the best place to send people... Thanks again for persisting, and also for expressing this criticism that we (hopefully) can use to make it better. Warner --000000000000c3734e061db9e3f9 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 Sat, Jul 20, 2024 at 1:59=E2=80=AF= AM cglogic <<a href=3D"mailto:cglogic@protonmail.com">cglogic@protonmail= .com</a>> wrote:<br></div><blockquote class=3D"gmail_quote" style=3D"mar= gin:0px 0px 0px 0.8ex;border-left:1px solid rgb(204,204,204);padding-left:1= ex"><div style=3D"font-family:Arial,sans-serif;font-size:14px;color:rgb(0,0= ,0);background-color:rgb(255,255,255)">Hello FreeBSD community,</div><div s= tyle=3D"font-family:Arial,sans-serif;font-size:14px;color:rgb(0,0,0);backgr= ound-color:rgb(255,255,255)"><br></div><div style=3D"font-family:Arial,sans= -serif;font-size:14px;color:rgb(0,0,0);background-color:rgb(255,255,255)"><= span style=3D"display:inline;background-color:rgb(255,255,255)">After=C2=A0= </span><span style=3D"background-color:rgb(255,255,255)">Jason Evans steppe= d aside from maintaining jemalloc in FreeBSD, it's not updating in time= anymore.</span><br></div><div style=3D"font-family:Arial,sans-serif;font-s= ize:14px;color:rgb(0,0,0);background-color:rgb(255,255,255)">Version 5.3.0 = was released=C2=A0<span>May 6, 2022 and FreeBSD still not imported it into = the tree.</span></div><div style=3D"font-family:Arial,sans-serif;font-size:= 14px;color:rgb(0,0,0);background-color:rgb(255,255,255)"><span><br></span><= /div><div style=3D"font-family:Arial,sans-serif;font-size:14px;color:rgb(0,= 0,0);background-color:rgb(255,255,255)">There is a pending review=C2=A0<spa= n><a rel=3D"noreferrer nofollow noopener" href=3D"https://reviews.freebsd.o= rg/D41421" target=3D"_blank">https://reviews.freebsd.org/D41421</a>=C2=A0fr= om=C2=A0<span>Aug 11, 2023.</span></span></div><div style=3D"font-family:Ar= ial,sans-serif;font-size:14px;color:rgb(0,0,0);background-color:rgb(255,255= ,255)"><span><span>I'm successfully running FreeBSD/amd64 system with D= 41421 applied for 8 months, as well as many other people.</span></span></di= v><div style=3D"font-family:Arial,sans-serif;font-size:14px;color:rgb(0,0,0= );background-color:rgb(255,255,255)"><span><span><br></span></span></div><d= iv style=3D"font-family:Arial,sans-serif;font-size:14px;color:rgb(0,0,0);ba= ckground-color:rgb(255,255,255)"><span><span>Can it be reviewed and committ= ed to CURRENT?</span></span></div><div style=3D"font-family:Arial,sans-seri= f;font-size:14px;color:rgb(0,0,0);background-color:rgb(255,255,255)"><span>= <span>Or, if there is no committers willing to do it, can commit bit be giv= en to submitter or another person willing to do this?</span></span></div><d= iv style=3D"font-family:Arial,sans-serif;font-size:14px;color:rgb(0,0,0);ba= ckground-color:rgb(255,255,255)"><span><span><br></span></span></div><div s= tyle=3D"font-family:Arial,sans-serif;font-size:14px;color:rgb(0,0,0);backgr= ound-color:rgb(255,255,255)"><span><span><span>It's very disappointing = when users spend their time to fill such gaps and their efforts just ignore= d by the developers.</span><br></span></span></div><div style=3D"font-famil= y:Arial,sans-serif;font-size:14px;color:rgb(0,0,0);background-color:rgb(255= ,255,255)"><span><span><span><span>Every year FreeBSD Community Survey aski= ng about user experience in contributing to FreeBSD. </span><br></span></sp= an></span></div><div style=3D"font-family:Arial,sans-serif;font-size:14px;c= olor:rgb(0,0,0);background-color:rgb(255,255,255)"><span><span><span><span>= Here you can see an example of such contributing.</span></span></span></spa= n></div><div style=3D"font-family:Arial,sans-serif;font-size:14px;color:rgb= (0,0,0);background-color:rgb(255,255,255)"><span><span><span></span></span>= </span></div><div style=3D"font-family:Arial,sans-serif;font-size:14px;colo= r:rgb(0,0,0);background-color:rgb(255,255,255)"><span><br></span></div></bl= ockquote><div><br></div><div>First, thank you for being persistent and cont= inuing to bring it up. It's important to do that to make sure this (and= your many other) contribution doesn't fall on the floor.<br></div><div= ><br></div><div>And to be fair, we're only 3 months since the last upda= te. Still, quite a bit longer than you should have to wait, but not nearly = the year the original date suggests.<br></div><div><br></div><div>And this = is a perfect storm of "how the project is bad at accepting contributio= ns":</div><div>(1) The original submission was close to the 14 branch = creation time. This meant that we weren't well prepared to look at it s= ince it is such an invasive change (at least on its surface). It also slowe= d the initial response...<br></div><div>(2) There was a number of back and = forth requests for changes, which took time to sort out...</div><div>(3) Th= e size of this is huge, well beyond the capacity of Phabricator to review a= ccurately...</div><div>(4) It's a vendor import. That means we can'= t just drop the Phabricator review into the tree...</div><div>(5) It's = phabricator: this is a great tool for developers, but we have a terrible tr= ack record of using it for intake from new contributors. We don't have = any oversight at all over this tool, at there's at best tepid and luke = warm attempts to look for drop balls.</div><div><br></div><div>All of these= things are a terrible experience. I can only apologize. These days, we mig= ht steer this towards github, but the 'vendor import' means you rea= lly need someone on the inside, or you need to be on the inside to make tha= t work.</div><div><br></div><div>So, how to move forward? Well, I'd lik= e to propose the following:</div><div>(1) submit all the other Phabricator = reviews you have open (they are mostly good, or close to good) to github. G= ithub is being actively managed and will make it faster to get things it. I= t's a much better tool for new contributors (and even frequent contribu= tors of smallish things).</div><div>(2) I should do an vendor import of 5.3= .0 from github, and do the merge to a branch and push that to github. You c= an then layer on your changes and those can be reviewed more closely as a p= ull request against the branch I push. I suspect that most of the issues ar= e sorted out already <br></div><div>(3) I'll land it via that route...<= /div><div><br></div><div>And, if the sum of the other pull requests and thi= s are good (and I suspect they will be), then we can talk about commit bits= and such.</div><div><br></div><div>It's experiences like this which is= why I'm trying to stand up github pull requests as a reliable way to g= et things and and the best place to send people...=C2=A0 <br></div><div><br= ></div><div>Thanks again for persisting, and also for expressing this criti= cism that we (hopefully) can use to make it better.<br></div><div><br></div= ><div>Warner<br></div></div></div> --000000000000c3734e061db9e3f9--
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?CANCZdfoGFbqTP8g-VRXazddp6nvTSZAEGuJka8Yf0K4D9TW6Rg>