From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 16459 invoked by alias); 9 Jun 2009 18:10:08 -0000 Received: (qmail 16447 invoked by uid 22791); 9 Jun 2009 18:10:07 -0000 X-SWARE-Spam-Status: No, hits=-2.1 required=5.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00 X-Spam-Check-By: sourceware.org Received: from smtp-116-tuesday.nerim.net (HELO maiev.nerim.net) (62.4.16.116) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.43rc1) with ESMTP; Tue, 09 Jun 2009 18:10:02 +0000 Received: from hector.lesours (ours.starynkevitch.net [213.41.244.95]) by maiev.nerim.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id DF089B81B3; Tue, 9 Jun 2009 20:09:58 +0200 (CEST) Received: from glinka.lesours ([192.168.0.1]) by hector.lesours with esmtp (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from ) id 1ME5lo-0000qf-3y; Tue, 09 Jun 2009 20:10:00 +0200 Message-ID: <4A2EA57E.5090703@starynkevitch.net> Date: Tue, 09 Jun 2009 18:10:00 -0000 From: Basile STARYNKEVITCH User-Agent: Mozilla-Thunderbird 2.0.0.19 (X11/20090103) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Andrew Haley CC: GCC Mailing List Subject: Re: increasing the number of GCC reviewers References: <4A2E8528.8090604@starynkevitch.net> <4A2E91B2.7040703@redhat.com> <4A2E9922.1090208@starynkevitch.net> <4A2E9C70.7090703@redhat.com> In-Reply-To: <4A2E9C70.7090703@redhat.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-IsSubscribed: yes Mailing-List: contact gcc-help@gcc.gnu.org; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Id: List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: Sender: gcc-owner@gcc.gnu.org X-SW-Source: 2009-06/txt/msg00190.txt.bz2 FWIW, I am not taking this question personally (I don't really claim that I could become any kind of reviewer; I believe in general that reviewing abilities should be evaluated by others.). I just think the set of reviewers should significantly grow. Andrew Haley wrote: > > >> My feeling is on the contrary that the set of people having a real >> knowledge of gcc (or at least of substantial parts of it [*]) is much >> bigger than the set of reviewers allowed to say OK. >> > > I am not at the summit. So I don't know if my perception "there are not enough reviewers" [0] is shared by others or not. I suppose it is agreed (that the set of reviewers should be increased [1]) If not, ignore the rest. I really don't know if other people believe (as I do) that the set of reviewers should significantly increase. My perception is that many reviewers have too much reviews [2] in their queue, and that these tasks might overwhelm or bore them. But since I am not a reviewer, I cannot reliably understand what it is to be one. For instance, my feeling is that Diego Novillo -whom I know, and I admire a lot- (and some other GCC gurus) is almost exhausted by his pending review queue. > That's certainly true, but there's a big difference between having real > knowledge of gcc and having enough real knowledge to approve a patch. > What might perhaps be discussed at the summit is possibly this (perhaps too strong) requirement on the reviewer's level. If there are too few reviewers, and if making a big lot of reviews is boring (or just too demanding or too tiring) to them, then we might consider lowering the threshold to become a reviewer (e.g. dispatch review abilities to more people, or perhaps define some fine grain policy on future reviewers; I could imagine that some people could review just a few GCC source files). > It is quite possibly the case that some maintainers should be "promoted". > But it isn't sufficient to have a blanket policy of "let's have more > reviewers". But we first should agree on the wish than an increase of the set of reviewers is desirable. > We need something more like "I think Fred Bloggs knows gcc > well enough to approve patches to reload" or "I am Fred Bloggs and I > know gcc well enough to approve patches to reload." > I am not sure to parse correctly this sentence. Sorry, English is a foreign language to me. Is "reload" some functionality (PCH?) you refer inside GCC, or is it the task of making reviews on patches submitted on gcc-patches@ ? I was just thinking about stuff like "Fred Bloggs knows enough to approve patches submitted on gcc-patches@ to files gcc/ggc*.[ch]" And it could happen that the plugin infrastructure might in the future move some code out of GCC core (and into plugins). In that future situation, the set of reviewers might not need to increase. Regards. Note 0: for me a reviewer is any person admitted to say ok to some (even very few) patches. Note 1: My intuition is that the number of reviewers should be proportional (at least; and one could believe to O(n log n) where n is the size of GCC) to the GCC source size. I am not sure (& I don't know if) it has increased by 30% in 3 years, as did the source code! Note 2: I have no idea if the patch-to-be-reviewed queue of each reviewer has increased since 2 years ago! I intuitively feel it did increase a lot, i.e. reviewers have much more pressure on them. Maybe I am wrong! -- Basile STARYNKEVITCH http://starynkevitch.net/Basile/ email: basilestarynkevitchnet mobile: +33 6 8501 2359 8, rue de la Faiencerie, 92340 Bourg La Reine, France *** opinions {are only mines, sont seulement les miennes} ***