On Tue, 20 May 2008, Alan Coopersmith wrote:

> Valerie Bubb Fenwick wrote:
>> As John notes, "soon" we'll have the gate outside of SWAN and sponsors
>> won't be needed anymore  :)
> Well, once the gate, WebRTI and bug tracking are all outside the SWAN...
> But will we give direct commit access to people with no track records or
> will we still need a sponsor to help with the first putback or two?

That's what we have the CRT for - we don't have any current rules, internally,
that someone needs to have done a mentored integration before they
can integrate into ON.  Most folks, though, who are doing their first
integration will talk to someone who has done one before to help
them walk through their first time.  They also often will note it
in their RTI, so the advocate can do a bit more hand holding as well.

> Even internally, it might be nice to have a "mentor" program for people
> who've never done an ON putback before.

We don't have a formal program for this, but most folks can find someone -
and if not someone on their team, they can seek assistance on the technology
alias.  I remember when I did my first integration to ON back in 2001 - I
got a guy from my group to check my RTI before I submitted, and he gave
me pointers to the RTI nits and even gave me advice on a good advocate
to use on a first time integration (someone who was thorough but patient).

I think the technology aliases could help serve this need, like
network-discuss or security-discuss.

> And as we've seen from the India contest, most people are used to the
> process of other open source projects, where you can just toss a patch
> over the wall, and not have to go through hours or days of process and
> pain to see it integrated - the maintainers of the project do that for
> you.   If we truly want to accept open source contributions we need to
> learn how to deal with these.    (Though I am slightly biased here - I

To the best of my knowledge, we have no plan to put staff on taking
"thrown over the fence" contributions.  Even our current sponsorship
program still requires that the contributor be willing to run code
review & do at least unit testing of their fix (even if that just
means building it).  We've seen a number of contributions languish
when a contributor does not want to/have time to do those things.

The thing to keep in mind is that all the sponsors are doing this as
a "icing on the cake" to their regular day job, so they don't necessarily
have the time to do all those tasks on behalf of the contributor either.

Also, as you've seen, not every contribution is actually ready for
integration when it first comes up on this list - so it is important
for the contributor to remain involved through integration.

> know there's a couple trivial things I've been waiting to see putback
> for years, but never had the time to go learn ON process for or waste
> days trying to figure out how to build it - one has had a patch sitting
> in bugster since 2003 (and which a community member recently
> submitted the same patch for, expecting us to not just ignore patches
> submitted to us), another is a simple /etc/services entry for Xvnc
> that I thought the Xen team would do in exchange for me integrating
> Xvnc for them, but they couldn't find the time to struggle through
> ON process either apparently.)

That's a shame someone couldn't help you out with a trivial integration,
but you are internal and you do know where we all sit :-)

Valerie Fenwick, http://blogs.sun.com/bubbva
Solaris Security Technologies,  Developer, Sun Microsystems, Inc.
17 Network Circle, Menlo Park, CA, 94025. 650-786-0461

Reply via email to