On Fri, 1 Jun 2007, Keith M Wesolowski wrote:
> On Fri, Jun 01, 2007 at 04:59:42PM -0500, Al Hopper wrote:
>
>> Please don't ask an unpaid, volunteer, OpenSolaris developer to make
>> changes that are simply stylistic or (personal) preference based.
>> Consider that Sun employees are paid to make any changes their
>> management requests - but that simply can't apply to volunteers like
>> Roland who have already put *hundreds* of unpaid man-hours into a
>> project.
>
> He's not asking Roland to make changes because he's his manager and
> can tell him what to work on. The correct way to interpret this is as
> an exchange of review commentary between peer engineers. If Roland
> doesn't want to make those changes, Meem can ask the C-team to block
> his RTI due to unsatisfied review comments. That's not the same as
> saying that Roland has to do this or that or he's fired.
But if Meem can checkout the file and make the changes in less time
than it takes him to write the review comment - does it make sense for
him (and every other reviewer) to write a seemingly endless set of
change requests?
> If you want to say that the rules for acceptable style, or the right
> use of makefile macros, or for that matter anything else are different
> based on who's paying, or not, for the work, then you're saying that
> quality doesn't matter. At that point all someone has to do to make
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
You *know* I'm not saying that and you know enough about me to know
that I would never say or imply that.
> arbitrarily wrong changes is assert that "no one's paying me, so it
> doesn't matter how wrong it is."
No - again you're arguing semantics.
> False. And, for that matter, in direct contradiction of every
> principle we've (Sun, the CAB, the OGB, and pretty much everyone else
> in this community) asserted from day one: this is a badge-blind
> technical community. We've not always done well at making that
> principle into reality, but when for once it's working please don't
> tell us that it's the wrong idea.
Agreed.
> The rules are the same for everyone. If Roland wants to see ksh93 in
> ON, he needs to satisfy his reviewers, or at least convince them that
> there is no immediate need for change. That rule applies always and
> everywhere.
My point is simply that it does not make sense for a reviewer to spend
10 or 20 minutes writing an email when he/she, as a subject matter
expert (SME), could resolve the "inconsistency" in less than half that
time.
I don't see the reviewer offering up his experience and suggesting
changes or even providing a "pointer" (aka URL) to a suitable
solution. IOW - for someone unfamiliar with the problem domain, it
might take them several hours to figure out the "problem" and devise
the "solution" - while the reviewer could resolve the issue, in a
fraction of that time.
>> PS: If its good enough to integrate its *good* *enough* to integrate.
>> We simply can't build GOLD-PLATED software using unpaid OpenSolaris
>> volunteers.
>
> I feel quite certain that Meem would give the same feedback to anyone,
> without regard for who's paying him. And that's the right thing.
Agreed.
> Review comments aren't necessarily about gold-pating the software;
> they're about getting it right. Needless divergence from existing
Agreed.
> standard usage is not acceptable. Meem's comments and questions
> indicate both a desire for correct, maintainable software and to learn
> whether there are legitimate reasons for divergence.
Agreed - I'm just asking him to be part of the solution instead of
spending more than the equivalent time pointing out the need for
changes.
We all need the OpenSolaris project to be successful. We need ksh93
integration to be successful. We need to concentrate our
time/resources into ensuring its success.
Thanks for the email Keith.
Al Hopper Logical Approach Inc, Plano, TX. al at logical-approach.com
Voice: 972.379.2133 Fax: 972.379.2134 Timezone: US CDT
OpenSolaris Governing Board (OGB) Member - Apr 2005 to Mar 2007
http://www.opensolaris.org/os/community/ogb/ogb_2005-2007/
