From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
From: Jim Wilson <wilson@cygnus.com>
To: Daniel Berlin <dan@cgsoftware.com>
Cc: gcc@gcc.gnu.org
Subject: Re: Loop unroll fixes 
Date: Fri, 14 Sep 2001 16:45:00 -0000
Message-id: <200109142345.QAA08763@cygnus.com>
References: <87elp9j2rg.fsf@cgsoftware.com>
X-SW-Source: 2001-09/msg00581.html

>No, I'd rather believe he's trying to just bully people into reviewing
>a patch.
>Which is good, in reality.

I can understand that you are probably responding in frustration, perhaps from
personal experience with problems with patch reviews, but I still don't think
that justifies a lack of civility in this case.

If there was evidence in the public record that a maintainer was unresponsive,
then yes, bullying would be appropriate.  But bullying should not be the
first approach, it should be the last resort.  There is no public evidence
to indicate that an maintainer was unresponsive.  And there is public evidence
indicating that bullying was the first approach used.

>It shouldn't take months to review patches.

Ideally, yes, but we get so many patches that no matter how good the process
is, there will always be some patches that are delayed.  I believe the
majority of patches get a response in a reasonable amount of time.  When
someone points out unreviewed patches, they usually get a response in a
reasonable amount of time.  Most patches that are delayed after that are
controversial and/or potentially disruptive.  That is not unreasonable.
I agree that the current process is a pain to work with, but overall I think
it is working reasonably well.

In this particular case, I presented evidence showing that there was one
month delay because of miscommunication, and one more month of delay because
of a conflict with the gcc 3.0.1 release process.  Thus the two month delay
in this particular case, though unfortunate, is perfectly understandable,
and does not indicate any serious flaws with the current system.

>This is the wrong approach.
>Your job, as a maintainer, is to review patches.
>It's not some "honor", or exalted position.
>You are supposed to review every patch, that comes into your area, in
>a reasonable amount of time.  Months is not reasonable.

I presented ample evidence in my last message to demonstrate that there is
no basis for this accusation in this particular case.  Making this claim
is offensive, and couterproductive.  I did volunteer to review this patch,
and now my thanks for my trouble is getting a flame from you.  If volunteers
get flamed for trying to help, then they will be less willing to help in the
future, and we will only have more trouble with patch reviews.

>Deferring action for a week just looks like you are trying to have a
>fiefdom of your own.

Another offensive comment.  My approach is easy to understand, it is a simple
application of negative reinforcement.  If someone uses threats against me,
then I will delay cooperating with them.  The more I am threated, the more
I will delay.  Eventually, I expect people will learn that threats are
counterproductive, and stop using them.  I am willing to accept the risk
that this approach will occasionally backfire.  I will not accept the claim
that this approach is wrong.  After all, I am a volunteer, and I reserve the
right to decide what I do with the time that I have volunteered to spend on
gcc.

Jim