Hey, I've noticed a couple of things that the community seems to be doing different than other open source projects and was wondering why? And also how to conform to this (or perhaps it is time to change?) so that ideas/releases/patches can move forward.
- Patches are not posted by committers. I see some patches that appear out of nowhere in the grub source code but they don't seem to be posted on the mailing list? Is that because there hadn't been enough reviewers on the mailing list? Which brings another question: - Some patches have been posted and hadn't much any architecture feedback or review. I am referring to Daniel's multboot2 extensions and the ARM multiboot implementation for example. Is that due to the tradition (not sure if that is the right word) that there aren't enough reviewers so folks shouldn't expect reviews? - Some patches that are in the git tree don't seem to have the Signed-Off-By which I find odd (*1). Patches that come from non-maintainers have them, but the maintainers/committers don't always? Is that because the committers have signed some form of 'implicit-Signed-off-by-when-I-check-in' document? I don't know enough about the community (or the history) to understand it but would very much appreciate input. And if I have offended somebody with my questions + feeble analysis: my deepest apologies - and please straighten me out! >From what I have gathered so far the not enough reviewers is tied in folks being overworked - so there simply was no point of posting on the mailing list as nobody had the time to review it or test it properly? [*1]: My background is in Linux kernel and Xen Project. _______________________________________________ Grub-devel mailing list Grub-devel@gnu.org https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/grub-devel
