Messages in this thread |  | | | From | "Rafael J. Wysocki" <> | | Subject | Re: Slow DOWN, please!!! | | Date | Fri, 2 May 2008 00:17:33 +0200 |
| |
On Thursday, 1 of May 2008, Willy Tarreau wrote: > On Thu, May 01, 2008 at 10:41:21AM -0700, Linus Torvalds wrote: > > Same goes for "we should all just spend time looking at each others > > patches and trying to find bugs in them". That's not a solution, that's a > > drug-induced dream you're living in. > > "all" above is the wrong part. Encourage each other into reviewing code > will definitely *help* (and I did not say fix the problem, OK?). There > are persons who regularly spend some time to review code. I'm thinking > about Al, Andrew, Christoph, Arjan, and maybe many other ones I'm missing, > just that I regularly see them give advices to people who post their patches > on the list. And even if only for that, they deserve some respect, and their > efforts must not be dismissed. > > Maybe they are more skilled than anyone else for this job. Maybe they're > so much used to do it that it just takes them a few minutes each time, I > don't know. I wish *more* people could be encouraged to do this work, > which is very likely painful but instructive. If the current reviewers > could give hints on how to save a lot of time to them, it may motivate > more to follow them. I suspect that insisting on developers to post their > less obvious work to the list(s) is a first step. Maybe at one point we're > all responsible when we see a mail entitled "[GIT] pull request for XXX", > we should all jump on it and ask "when and where was this code reviewed ?". > > Once again, it's not a fix. It's just one small step towards a saner process. > > > So do you have any productive *suggestions*? Some that involve more than > > "let's write less code" or "let's just review each others patches more". > > It's not much about reviewing each others' patches, it's about showing > one's work to others first. If our developers are encouraged to work > alone in a cave late at night with itching eyes, and send their work > at once every 2 months in a sealed envelope, we'll not solve anything. > > I also proposed a more repressive method incitating the ones with really > bad scores to find crap in other's work in order to remain hidden behind > them. You explained why it would not work. Fine. > > I also proposed to group merges by reduced overlapping areas, and to > shorten the merge window and make it (at least) twice as often. Rafael > also proposed to merge core first, then archs, which is a refined variation > on the same principle.
That wasn't me, but the idea is also worth considering IMO.
Thanks, Rafael
|  |