Hi Tom,
On Wed, 4 Dec 2024 at 09:27, Tom Rini trini@konsulko.com wrote:
On Wed, Dec 04, 2024 at 08:13:04AM -0700, Simon Glass wrote:
Hi Tom,
On Tue, 3 Dec 2024 at 18:29, Tom Rini trini@konsulko.com wrote:
On Mon, Dec 02, 2024 at 05:21:05PM -0700, Simon Glass wrote:
From my side I'd like to change the conversation a little, to how to land code, rather than why we should bother. "Code needs to land" should be the motto. If someone has taken the time to create something, our bias should be towards getting it in, with sufficient changes to make it fit the project. There are cases where something is just a bad idea, or should be done another way, but for people working on major features or changes, biasing towards not landing the code is just going to make them go elsewhere.
This is the wrong approach I believe. The goal has always been and continues to be to have reviewed (whenever possible, our developer community is small) incremental change over time.
Yes, I agree with that, but it isn't what I said.
I don't know how else to interpret "Code needs to land". I'm not sure what reviewed patches we have that are outstanding, but also not fairly new. We do have patches outstanding, in general. Much of those fall in to the categories of:
- Custodian is active, but also very busy (virtually everyone is a volunteer so I have a hard time getting forceful with people that have a large queue).
- Custodian isn't active / no direct custodian and the code hasn't been reviewed by anyone else.
Here's my intention with 'code needs to land': to bias against people saying "I don't like this; I don't care about your use case; please go away"
Just because something has been posted a number of times does not mean it's ready to be merged.
I didn't say that either.
It's an impression you give however when you repost a series less than a day after last posting, without addressing all of the feedback.
I'm going to ignore that comment as it is not helpful and mischaracterises my contributions.
Your challenge today is that on patchwork you have over 150 patches covering a wide variety of topics and of which many series have technically-merited feedback that needs to be addressed in a technical manner.
By my count I have about 10 series in progress, with a small number of patches (< 10?) with pending feedback
I'm not sure about that less than 10 number, in part because it's hard to keep track of which feedback was applied, and which not. And part because some of those series are places where I told you I'm unsure about the core concept but you asked and I'm giving you leeway to show me the end result.
OK
that isn't effectively just a NAK.
To be clear, "just a NAK" isn't the whole story. Those NAKs come with technical rationales and requests. But maybe they're just lost in the volume of emails you have in some cases. I know for example I mentioned a few times and places that we have tests today for booting the OS, when you mention that we need to add a test for booting the OS. We need to expand that test, yes.
If you look at the OF_BLOBLIST thing, it is basically a NAK. I don't see any other way to interpret it,. So several boards in my lab have been broken for a year.
It isn't a particularly large number, if you add up the patches I do in each cycle. It is in the nature of development and code review that things are often not right the first time, or someone else has another perspective, so I cannot see how this can be reduced.
The easy way to reduce it would be to go from 10 series in progress to 1 series in progress, and finish that before picking up series number 2, and so on. And then in the future, stop when you have more than 2 or 3 in progress at once.
That's obviously not practical for the amount I am contributing and the length of time it takes us to get things in. I hope it isn't a serious suggestion!
But really, it feels like "Code needs to land" is another way of saying "Just a NAK should be ignored".
Yes, a bias more towards that would be more healthy IMO. A NAK needs to come with a full understanding of the use case, an alternative way to meet the use case, once that doesn't involve boiling the Pacific Ocean.
Regards, Simon