----- Original Message ----- From: "Mike A. Harris" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Monday, January 13, 2003 9:38 AM Subject: Re: [Devel] Re: Another voice
> On Sun, 12 Jan 2003, Andrew C Aitchison wrote: > > >> As far as commit access goes, frankly, if those asking for it could > >> establish a record of submitting complete and correct patches that didn't > >> need review (and Mike, your record on this isn't anything to boast > >> about), then you might have a better shot at it. > > > >We *need* more developer-hours on the commit process. > > That would be a nice thing to have. It works marvelously for all > other projects that have wider spread CVS write permissions. > > > >Maybe we have to put up with people like Mike making a few more > >mistakes while that they learn what they are doing wrong? > > I can't agree with you more. I, like any serious developer, > certainly want to be told about my mistakes, so I can correct > them, or have an opportunity to explain why I believe my changes > to be correct. > > There's only one patch that I can think of off the top of my head > which I've sent to XFree86.org which was rejected, to which I > later resent an updated version back with a good explanation for > why I thought it should be applied. I don't recall receiving any > feedback positive or negative since. It's not a major issue > however as I apply the patch to our sources regardless, as I > believe it to be correct, and it harms nothing at all. > > Most likely I will post that patch here again in the future - now > that the development list is publically open. I am then going to > get much wider peer review of my patch, and instead of getting > one person's opinion of it's correctness, I can get 100 people's > opinion. While it may not make the patch accepted into the > upstream official source even if 500 people agree, it would at > least make it a case 500 separate opinions, instead of the prior > case of one person's opinion in a position of power's versus one > person's opinion whom is not in a position of power. > > I'd rather be judged by 500 peer developers for the quality of my > patches and work than by one single person. > > > >They will learn a lot faster by doing it wrong than by submitting > >patches that may or may not appear months later in a very different > >form. > > Indeed. I will say that a while back, I approached David > concerning patches and what his expectations were. I have made > every effort to try and meet those expectations, and have > modified some of my ways of doing things further beyond what was > requested, in an attempt to provide the project with better > submissions. > > In the past, I would not only send in my own patches (which > incidentally get applied unmodified almost always), but I used to > submit many patches from others, usually - but not always with > proper attributions on them. Some patches you find in the wild > with no indication of whom the original author is. I just passed > the stuff all on upstream hoping that someone there would review > them for correctness, apply them, or reject them, etc. Some > patches I just picked up of mailing lists as I saw them, and > submitted them so they wouldn't get lost. Several of these > patches as you can imagine, were not the highest quality, and > many never got into the tree. Unfortunately however, many of > them were wrongly I believe attributed to ME, but of no fault of > my own for not being more organized with what I sent in, and > without as much process and procedure in place as what I have > now. > > I also used to send in patches that people sent into Red Hat via > bugzilla. We receive many patches of which I personally am not > familiar with the particular area of code that is being patched, > and so I am not always personally capable of vouching for a given > patch's correctness. > > In such cases, what should one such as myself do? Tell the > person to send their patch to XFree86.org instead? People get > PISSED BIGTIME! I've told people to please submit xkb patches > (MANY of the ones recently sent in to [EMAIL PROTECTED] which > subsequently were applied to CVS, and if need be I can provide > bugzilla bug ID's of proof). People go nuts! "I am a Red hat > user and you should apply my damn patch blah blah." > > If I send it to XFree86.org myself, then am I being judged as > having vouched for it's correctness? I didn't think I was > before, but after David's comments toward "my patches" before, I > took a hard line about it. For a few months I have refused MANY > patches submitted, and requested the person to send their patch > directly to [EMAIL PROTECTED], and that if it were accepted > upstream, I would apply it to Red Hat Linux also. I also have > stated to people when doing this many times (and this is also > bugzilla queryable for the conspiracy theorists amongst us) that > by submitting the patch upstream, ALL distributions get the > benefit, as does the project as a whole, and that it doesn't end > up being a fix that is only seen by Red Hat users. > > > >As others have said, feedback on problem submissions is important; > >does it add much time to fire off a quick note at the point where you > >find a problem with a submission ? You don't need to tell us the > >solution. > > If something is wrong with a patch I submit, or a fix I make, I > _WANT_ to know about it, and preferably by MANY people - not just > one. > > > >Without access to the submissions* I can't tell, but maybe if we > >we would make better progress with 99% accurate commits than > >insisting that every one was 100% perfect (90% would *not* be good > >enough) ? > > Sure, that way, if I submit a patch, and it sucks, I can get a > kick in the head from 500 people instead of only a few. I want > to have numerous people overviewing anything I submit, and I'd > like also to have just as many people reviewing other people's > submissions too. Code quality is important. > > > >I'd not in a position to accuse anyone, but I'm reminded of the saying: > >"The best is the enemy of the good". > > > >* Read access to the patch@ and fixes@ lists would be helpful, then > >we would all have an idea of the backlog. > > Very much so. Since David announced the other day that all of > the previously private members-only lists were going to be made > public, I totally give him the benefit of doubt if these were > overlooked, that it was an honest goofup to forget to make them > also public, since they're not mailing lists in the more > traditional sense. > > Since I am a member however, I get both of these lists > automatically and can't be sure if they're public now or not. A member? A member of what? The public lists? Not sure to what memberhsip you are referring. G > -- > Mike A. Harris > > > > _______________________________________________ > Devel mailing list > [EMAIL PROTECTED] > http://XFree86.Org/mailman/listinfo/devel _______________________________________________ Devel mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://XFree86.Org/mailman/listinfo/devel
