Re: patch review time

Re: patch review time

[Nick Roberts]

> BTW, 2 of the MI MAINTAINERS completely do *nothing*. They don't respond
> to Emails, they don't review patches, and as far as I can tell, do
> nothing behind the scene.

> Shouldn't they be removed from this position, since, IMO, they are *not*
> maintaining the code. I think having 3 maintainers under the section

>   mi (gdb/mi)             Andrew Cagney     cagney@redhat.com
>                           Elena Zannoni     ezannoni@redhat.com
>                           Fernando Nasser   fnasser@redhat.com

> is misleading. Since Andrew is the *only* one I can tell is maintaining
> code for MI, even if it's not at the speed that I desire.

Hang on. Let's be pragmatic. How will things get *better* if they are removed.
They are the original authors and know the code better than the rest of us.
We don't know what their committments/current interests are. At the moment,
they might contribute at some time in the future. If they are removed then
presumably they won't.

Bob, you're not the only one whose e-mails go ignored. Answering questions,
reviewing patches takes up time. Unpaid time. If my e-mail is unanswered, it
tells me something: either people aren't interested or they are too busy.
Sometimes I let it go, sometimes I realise it was a stupid question, and
sometimes I send another e-mail and try to add something to get a reply.

It only makes sense to remove people from MAINTAINERS if some-one else is
stepping forward with the enough expertise and enthusiasm. Right know,
with MI, AFAIK they aren't. Shit happens.


Nick

Re: patch review time

[Bob Rossi]

On Sun, Mar 06, 2005 at 09:32:40AM +1300, Nick Roberts wrote:
> 
> > BTW, 2 of the MI MAINTAINERS completely do *nothing*. They don't respond
> > to Emails, they don't review patches, and as far as I can tell, do
> > nothing behind the scene.
> 
> > Shouldn't they be removed from this position, since, IMO, they are *not*
> > maintaining the code. I think having 3 maintainers under the section
> 
> >   mi (gdb/mi)             Andrew Cagney     cagney@redhat.com
> >                           Elena Zannoni     ezannoni@redhat.com
> >                           Fernando Nasser   fnasser@redhat.com
> 
> > is misleading. Since Andrew is the *only* one I can tell is maintaining
> > code for MI, even if it's not at the speed that I desire.
> 
> Hang on. Let's be pragmatic. How will things get *better* if they are removed.
> They are the original authors and know the code better than the rest of us.
> We don't know what their committments/current interests are. At the moment,
> they might contribute at some time in the future. If they are removed then
> presumably they won't.

Nothing is stopping them from contributing now or in the future. As far as I 
can tell, things will not get better with them in or not in the MAINTAINERS 
file. I don't even get responses from them when I send Emails.

I guess I don't really care if they are noted as MAINTAINERS even if
they don't maintain the code. I just want to make it clear that there is
1 active maintainer, not 3.

> Bob, you're not the only one whose e-mails go ignored. Answering questions,
> reviewing patches takes up time. Unpaid time. If my e-mail is unanswered, it
> tells me something: either people aren't interested or they are too busy.
> Sometimes I let it go, sometimes I realise it was a stupid question, and
> sometimes I send another e-mail and try to add something to get a reply.

I don't really care about the "unpaid" time business. My time goes
unpaid as well, so I see it as a clean slate, we're all even here.

Answering Emails and reviewing patches are some of the job's of a maintainer.
My Emails and patches are ignored often, this tells me that there is no 
MAINTAINER that has time/interested in having another contributer improve 
upon the MI code base. This tells me that there is a lack of active maintainers 
in the area.

I'm going to contribute a large amount to GDB/MI and get it done within a 
reasonable amount of time, or I'm not going to be able to. The point of
this Email thread is to bring up the fact that I simply can not wait
months and months to get what I need to get done, done.

Bob Rossi

Re: patch review time

[Kip Macy]

I think Bob may be trying to say that he'd like to be a maintainer ;-)



On Sat, 5 Mar 2005, Bob Rossi wrote:

> On Sun, Mar 06, 2005 at 09:32:40AM +1300, Nick Roberts wrote:
> >
> > > BTW, 2 of the MI MAINTAINERS completely do *nothing*. They don't respond
> > > to Emails, they don't review patches, and as far as I can tell, do
> > > nothing behind the scene.
> >
> > > Shouldn't they be removed from this position, since, IMO, they are *not*
> > > maintaining the code. I think having 3 maintainers under the section
> >
> > >   mi (gdb/mi)             Andrew Cagney     cagney@redhat.com
> > >                           Elena Zannoni     ezannoni@redhat.com
> > >                           Fernando Nasser   fnasser@redhat.com
> >
> > > is misleading. Since Andrew is the *only* one I can tell is maintaining
> > > code for MI, even if it's not at the speed that I desire.
> >
> > Hang on. Let's be pragmatic. How will things get *better* if they are removed.
> > They are the original authors and know the code better than the rest of us.
> > We don't know what their committments/current interests are. At the moment,
> > they might contribute at some time in the future. If they are removed then
> > presumably they won't.
>
> Nothing is stopping them from contributing now or in the future. As far as I
> can tell, things will not get better with them in or not in the MAINTAINERS
> file. I don't even get responses from them when I send Emails.
>
> I guess I don't really care if they are noted as MAINTAINERS even if
> they don't maintain the code. I just want to make it clear that there is
> 1 active maintainer, not 3.
>
> > Bob, you're not the only one whose e-mails go ignored. Answering questions,
> > reviewing patches takes up time. Unpaid time. If my e-mail is unanswered, it
> > tells me something: either people aren't interested or they are too busy.
> > Sometimes I let it go, sometimes I realise it was a stupid question, and
> > sometimes I send another e-mail and try to add something to get a reply.
>
> I don't really care about the "unpaid" time business. My time goes
> unpaid as well, so I see it as a clean slate, we're all even here.
>
> Answering Emails and reviewing patches are some of the job's of a maintainer.
> My Emails and patches are ignored often, this tells me that there is no
> MAINTAINER that has time/interested in having another contributer improve
> upon the MI code base. This tells me that there is a lack of active maintainers
> in the area.
>
> I'm going to contribute a large amount to GDB/MI and get it done within a
> reasonable amount of time, or I'm not going to be able to. The point of
> this Email thread is to bring up the fact that I simply can not wait
> months and months to get what I need to get done, done.
>
> Bob Rossi
>

Re: patch review time

[Russell Shaw]

Bob Rossi wrote:
> On Sun, Mar 06, 2005 at 09:32:40AM +1300, Nick Roberts wrote:

...

> I'm going to contribute a large amount to GDB/MI and get it done within a 
> reasonable amount of time, or I'm not going to be able to. The point of
> this Email thread is to bring up the fact that I simply can not wait
> months and months to get what I need to get done, done.
> 
> Bob Rossi
> 

Maybe you could check out your own copy of the cvs, add all the stuff to it,
test it, then get it included in the real cvs some months later?

I have the same problem of a dead gdb list and unanswered questions.

Re: patch review time

[Bob Rossi]

On Sat, Mar 05, 2005 at 02:14:55PM -0800, Kip Macy wrote:
> I think Bob may be trying to say that he'd like to be a maintainer ;-)

If this is the only way I can make a significant contribution to GDB
without having a time frame of months to a year, sign me up.

See, I don't care what the mechanism is to allowing an outside
contributor to improve GDB is, I just want find it and do it. 

I don't care if Andrew is slow at reviewing my patches, it doesn't make 
me mad at Andrew, since everyone has there own time to put towards there
own goals. However, if Andrew as "head maintainer" is not going to change
the GDB development process, to allow any outside contributor (me) to work on
GDB within a reasonable time frame, there then there is a real problem.

I am still trying to figure out if there is a loophole in Andrew's
system (note, I didn't say GDB's system) that will allow an outside contributor 
to give back to GDB with in a reasonable amount of time, or if for some reason, 
he's trying to block all large amount of contributor's development.

Well, Andrew, is there a loophole?

Andrew, I'm started to get fed up with your complete lack of response.
Will you please take me serious, pick up your role as head maintainer,
and respond to my allegations? This way, I'll at least know what the
possibilities of accomplishing my goals here are.

Thanks,
Bob Rossi

Re: patch review time

[Bob Rossi]

On Sun, Mar 06, 2005 at 11:12:52AM +1100, Russell Shaw wrote:
> Bob Rossi wrote:
> >On Sun, Mar 06, 2005 at 09:32:40AM +1300, Nick Roberts wrote:
> 
> ...
> 
> >I'm going to contribute a large amount to GDB/MI and get it done within a 
> >reasonable amount of time, or I'm not going to be able to. The point of
> >this Email thread is to bring up the fact that I simply can not wait
> >months and months to get what I need to get done, done.
> >
> >Bob Rossi
> >
> 
> Maybe you could check out your own copy of the cvs, add all the stuff to it,
> test it, then get it included in the real cvs some months later?

Yeah, this would make sense. However, when I post large patches, they
are *completely* ignored. 

Also, to be completely honest, that would probably cripple the quality of
my patches. When my patches are reviewed, and people chime in, the
quality and end result of my work is significantly greater.

The real behind the scene point is that Andrew has a foot hold on GDB,
and for some reason, no one else in this community bothers to stand up
for what should be right. 
   
Significant contributions to GDB should be able to be done within a 
reasonable amount of time!

Thanks,
Bob Rossi

Re: patch review time

[Daniel Jacobowitz]

On Sun, Mar 06, 2005 at 08:44:16AM -0500, Bob Rossi wrote:
> Andrew, I'm started to get fed up with your complete lack of response.
> Will you please take me serious, pick up your role as head maintainer,
> and respond to my allegations? This way, I'll at least know what the
> possibilities of accomplishing my goals here are.

Hey, Bob, please take a deep breath and calm down for a little while.

Andrew hasn't posted anything to the GDB lists in about a week.  That
suggests that he's either extremely busy, or traveling, or otherwise
unavailable.  Ranting at him for being a human with other obligations
doesn't get you anywhere, and it doesn't incline anyone else to take
you seriously.

I understand your concerns about the system, but you need to consider
that you're dealing with individuals, not just a system.

-- 
Daniel Jacobowitz
CodeSourcery, LLC

Re: patch review time

[Bob Rossi]

On Sun, Mar 06, 2005 at 10:57:04AM -0500, Daniel Jacobowitz wrote:
> On Sun, Mar 06, 2005 at 08:44:16AM -0500, Bob Rossi wrote:
> > Andrew, I'm started to get fed up with your complete lack of response.
> > Will you please take me serious, pick up your role as head maintainer,
> > and respond to my allegations? This way, I'll at least know what the
> > possibilities of accomplishing my goals here are.
> 
> Hey, Bob, please take a deep breath and calm down for a little while.

OK. 

> Andrew hasn't posted anything to the GDB lists in about a week.  That
> suggests that he's either extremely busy, or traveling, or otherwise
> unavailable.  Ranting at him for being a human with other obligations
> doesn't get you anywhere, and it doesn't incline anyone else to take
> you seriously.

OK. I can't tell the difference between when he's busy, and when he's
not responding to me. Unfortunately it's all the same.

> I understand your concerns about the system, but you need to consider
> that you're dealing with individuals, not just a system.

Thanks for the advice.

This problem is very serious to me. In fact, I don't have any personal 
problems with Andrew, he's reviewed all of my patches and given me good 
advice. The problem is, I can't get a serious amount of work done, because 
there is no one in the MI area that will review my patches within a reasonable 
amount of time.  I simply want to fix that problem. Eli told me the only 
way to fix the problem was to talk to the head maintainer. Unfortunately for 
me, the head maintainer is the only active maintainer for the MI interface.

My question is, what can I do, what options do I have, to contribute a
large amount to the MI interface within a reasonable amount of time?
Everyone involved in GDB should be interested in this question.

Thanks,
Bob Rossi

Re: patch review time

[Eli Zaretskii]

> Date: Sun, 6 Mar 2005 08:48:04 -0500
> From: Bob Rossi <bob@brasko.net>
> Cc: gdb@sources.redhat.com
> 
> and for some reason, no one else in this community bothers to stand up
> for what should be right. 

I think this is a gross misrepresentation of the reality, to say the
least.  You can find lots of evidence to the contrary in the archives.

Bob, in your justified struggle to get your patches reviewed in a
timely fashion, please don't start shooting in every direction and
hurting people who did nothing wrong and have no relation whatsoever
to your problem.

Re: patch review time

[Daniel Berlin]

On Sun, 2005-03-06 at 20:47 +0200, Eli Zaretskii wrote:
> > Date: Sun, 6 Mar 2005 08:48:04 -0500
> > From: Bob Rossi <bob@brasko.net>
> > Cc: gdb@sources.redhat.com
> > 
> > and for some reason, no one else in this community bothers to stand up
> > for what should be right. 
> 
> I think this is a gross misrepresentation of the reality, to say the
> least.  You can find lots of evidence to the contrary in the archives.
> 
Yes.
In fact, you'll find this fight has been fought for years. :)

Re: patch review time

[Bob Rossi]

On Sun, Mar 06, 2005 at 08:47:55PM +0200, Eli Zaretskii wrote:
> > Date: Sun, 6 Mar 2005 08:48:04 -0500
> > From: Bob Rossi <bob@brasko.net>
> > Cc: gdb@sources.redhat.com
> > 
> > and for some reason, no one else in this community bothers to stand up
> > for what should be right. 
> 
> I think this is a gross misrepresentation of the reality, to say the
> least.  You can find lots of evidence to the contrary in the archives.
> 
> Bob, in your justified struggle to get your patches reviewed in a
> timely fashion, please don't start shooting in every direction and
> hurting people who did nothing wrong and have no relation whatsoever
> to your problem.

Eli, I'm sorry if I've done this. You, Daniel Jacobowitz and Michael
Chastain have been *very* helpful to me, as I've been learning and
working with GDB. In fact, Andrew has also been helpful, even if he is 
extremely rude about it.

The reason I blame everyone, and not anyone in particular, is because if
the GDB community really cared about contributions from the outside, the
GDB community would change the process to make it happen, no matter what
the cost. I don't know why it is difficult to get patches into GDB/MI in
a timely fashion. I do know that the path needs to open up to allow
this, otherwise GDB, and the community at a whole will suffer.

Since I am no one in the GDB community, I need people that have the
power to give me a solution to get patches into GDB in a timely fashion.

My hope is that I will find that path.

Bob Rossi

Re: patch review time

[Eli Zaretskii]

> Date: Sun, 6 Mar 2005 15:29:26 -0500
> From: Bob Rossi <bob@brasko.net>
> Cc: rjshaw@netspace.net.au, gdb@sources.redhat.com
> 
> The reason I blame everyone, and not anyone in particular, is because if
> the GDB community really cared about contributions from the outside, the
> GDB community would change the process to make it happen, no matter what
> the cost.

The GDB community tried to do that, and it continues trying.

Re: patch review time

[Bob Rossi]

On Mon, Mar 07, 2005 at 06:35:48AM +0200, Eli Zaretskii wrote:
> > Date: Sun, 6 Mar 2005 15:29:26 -0500
> > From: Bob Rossi <bob@brasko.net>
> > Cc: rjshaw@netspace.net.au, gdb@sources.redhat.com
> > 
> > The reason I blame everyone, and not anyone in particular, is because if
> > the GDB community really cared about contributions from the outside, the
> > GDB community would change the process to make it happen, no matter what
> > the cost.
> 
> The GDB community tried to do that, and it continues trying.

I appreciate the effort, and will follow suite with the experienced
maintainers on this issue. I hope that some solution is reached so that
I can contribute to GDB in a timely fashion.

Until then, my patches will be silently waiting at gdb-patches ...

Thanks,
Bob Rossi

Re: patch review time

[Bob Rossi]

On Sun, Mar 06, 2005 at 08:52:11PM +0200, Eli Zaretskii wrote:
> > Date: Sat, 5 Mar 2005 22:24:19 -0800
> > From: Kip Macy <kip.macy@gmail.com>
> > Cc: Kip Macy <kmacy@fsmware.com>, bob@brasko.net, gdb@sources.redhat.com, 
> > 	cagney@redhat.com, ezannoni@redhat.com, fnasser@redhat.com
> > 
> > Where are these rules written down? 
> 
> Perhaps nowhere (why ask me?).  However, this issue came up before,
> and when it did, what I said was the conclusion we reached.  You will
> probably find the discussions in archives.

Look's like someone knows how to ask a maintainer to step down,

   http://lists.gnu.org/archive/html/gdb-discuss/2004-02/msg00071.html

Again, as Nick made me realize, I'm not interested in people stepping
down, I'm just interested in contributing to GDB. The fact that there is
3 maintainers in MI, and in 1.5 years, I've only seen one of them
contribute makes me uncomfortable. In fact, Elena reviewed my first
patch to MI, then something terrible happened in GDB, and that was the
last I've seen of her ...

Bob Rossi

Re: patch review time

[Eli Zaretskii]

> Date: Sat, 5 Mar 2005 22:24:19 -0800
> From: Kip Macy <kip.macy@gmail.com>
> Cc: Kip Macy <kmacy@fsmware.com>, bob@brasko.net, gdb@sources.redhat.com, 
> 	cagney@redhat.com, ezannoni@redhat.com, fnasser@redhat.com
> 
> Where are these rules written down? 

Perhaps nowhere (why ask me?).  However, this issue came up before,
and when it did, what I said was the conclusion we reached.  You will
probably find the discussions in archives.

Re: patch review time

[Kip Macy]

Where are these rules written down? 

             -Kip


On Sun, 06 Mar 2005 06:44:00 +0200, Eli Zaretskii <eliz@gnu.org> wrote:
> > Date: Sat, 5 Mar 2005 09:17:36 -0800 (PST)
> > From: Kip Macy <kmacy@fsmware.com>
> > cc: Bob Rossi <bob@brasko.net>, gdb@sources.redhat.com, cagney@redhat.com,
> >    ezannoni@redhat.com, fnasser@redhat.com
> >
> > > IANAL, but I think according to The Law, one cannot remove anyone from
> > > MAINTAINERS, except if that person agreed to step down.
> >
> >
> > What law is this?
> 
> The law of GDB maintenance, i.e. the set of rules that codifies how
> GDB maintenance is done.
>

Re: patch review time

[Eli Zaretskii]

> Date: Sat, 5 Mar 2005 09:17:36 -0800 (PST)
> From: Kip Macy <kmacy@fsmware.com>
> cc: Bob Rossi <bob@brasko.net>, gdb@sources.redhat.com, cagney@redhat.com,
>    ezannoni@redhat.com, fnasser@redhat.com
> 
> > IANAL, but I think according to The Law, one cannot remove anyone from
> > MAINTAINERS, except if that person agreed to step down.
> 
> 
> What law is this?

The law of GDB maintenance, i.e. the set of rules that codifies how
GDB maintenance is done.

Re: patch review time

[Kip Macy]

> IANAL, but I think according to The Law, one cannot remove anyone from
> MAINTAINERS, except if that person agreed to step down.


What law is this?

			-Kip

Re: patch review time

[Eli Zaretskii]

> Date: Sat, 5 Mar 2005 10:27:51 -0500
> From: Bob Rossi <bob@brasko.net>
> Cc: gdb@sources.redhat.com, cagney@redhat.com, ezannoni@redhat.com,
> 	fnasser@redhat.com
> 
> > You should complain to the head maintainer.
> 
> Who is that?

Andrew Cagney.

> The MAINTAINERS file mentions no such position.

Yes, a known problem.

> Shouldn't they be removed from this position, since, IMO, they are *not*
> maintaining the code.

IANAL, but I think according to The Law, one cannot remove anyone from
MAINTAINERS, except if that person agreed to step down.

Re: patch review time

[Bob Rossi]

> > What if the particular maintainer is busy?
> 
> You should complain to the head maintainer.

Who is that? The MAINTAINERS file mentions no such position.

BTW, 2 of the MI MAINTAINERS completely do *nothing*. They don't respond
to Emails, they don't review patches, and as far as I can tell, do
nothing behind the scene.

Shouldn't they be removed from this position, since, IMO, they are *not*
maintaining the code. I think having 3 maintainers under the section

   mi (gdb/mi)             Andrew Cagney     cagney@redhat.com
                           Elena Zannoni     ezannoni@redhat.com
                           Fernando Nasser   fnasser@redhat.com

is misleading. Since Andrew is the *only* one I can tell is maintaining
code for MI, even if it's not at the speed that I desire.

Bob Rossi

Re: patch review time

[Eli Zaretskii]

> Date: Fri, 4 Mar 2005 17:16:56 -0500
> From: Bob Rossi <bob@brasko.net>
> Cc: gdb@sources.redhat.com
> 
> The only possible solution I could come to, was that he thought patch
> review would slow him down to the point were he wouldn't be able to get
> work done.

This cannot be true if the patch review takes hours.  Even working in
his unilateral commit-whenever-you-want paradigm, Andrew could only
commit a patch once in a couple of days--this is more than enough for
me and others to review the previous patch.

> Even though you think this isn't the problem, it's the only
> conclusion I can draw from his statement.

You could draw the conclusion I drew: that Andrew simply doesn't want
to fix whatever problematic issues I and others pointed out in his
patches, and doesn't want to be bothered to explain and defend his
design.

> > > Well what should I do?
> > 
> > The only thing to do is to bug the responsible maintainer(s).
> 
> What if the particular maintainer is busy?

You should complain to the head maintainer.

Re: patch review time

[Bob Rossi]

On Fri, Mar 04, 2005 at 07:37:10PM +0200, Eli Zaretskii wrote:
> > Date: Fri, 4 Mar 2005 10:54:41 -0500
> > From: Bob Rossi <bob@brasko.net>
> > Cc: gdb@sources.redhat.com
> > 
> > > Please don't start that again.  I told you right there and then that
> > > the i18n changes Andrew was referring to were going slow because of
> > > those who made changes, not because of the review process, since my
> > > comments on the i18n-related patches were posted at most a couple of
> > > days after the RFA, and normally just a few hours after the RFA.
> > 
> > Then let me ask you a qustion. Why did he not bother to get them
> > reviewed? 
> 
> I asked Andrew this question, but didn't get any useful answers.

The only possible solution I could come to, was that he thought patch
review would slow him down to the point were he wouldn't be able to get
work done. Even though you think this isn't the problem, it's the only
conclusion I can draw from his statement. I guess it will be a mystery,
unless of course, he decides to tell us.

> > Well what should I do?
> 
> The only thing to do is to bug the responsible maintainer(s).

What if the particular maintainer is busy? Am I just out of luck? That
doesn't seem very reasonable to me, does it to you?

There must be some other action I can take ...

Thanks,
Bob Rossi

Re: patch review time

[Eli Zaretskii]

> Date: Fri, 4 Mar 2005 10:54:41 -0500
> From: Bob Rossi <bob@brasko.net>
> Cc: gdb@sources.redhat.com
> 
> > Please don't start that again.  I told you right there and then that
> > the i18n changes Andrew was referring to were going slow because of
> > those who made changes, not because of the review process, since my
> > comments on the i18n-related patches were posted at most a couple of
> > days after the RFA, and normally just a few hours after the RFA.
> 
> Then let me ask you a qustion. Why did he not bother to get them
> reviewed? 

I asked Andrew this question, but didn't get any useful answers.

> Well what should I do?

The only thing to do is to bug the responsible maintainer(s).

Re: patch review time

[Bob Rossi]

On Fri, Mar 04, 2005 at 05:41:10PM +0200, Eli Zaretskii wrote:
> > Date: Fri, 4 Mar 2005 09:26:00 -0500
> > From: Bob Rossi <bob@brasko.net>
> > Cc: gdb@sources.redhat.com
> > 
> > On Fri, Mar 04, 2005 at 09:33:25AM +0200, Eli Zaretskii wrote:
> > > > Date: Thu, 3 Mar 2005 10:00:22 -0500
> > > > From: Bob Rossi <bob@brasko.net>
> > > > 
> > > > I understand that people are busy, which is the very reason my patches
> > > > take so long to create. However, from my perspective it simply takes to long, 
> > > > to get patch reviews done, except of course doco reviews from Eli :).
> > > 
> > > I think I generally review all patches within my responsibility and/or
> > > area of expertise with the same speed, not only the doco ones.
> > 
> > I think you are missing the point here Eli.
> 
> No, I'm not: _you_ are.
> 
> All I wanted to say that _my_ review time is short no matter if it's
> with documentation or code patches.  In other words, I was protesting
> against your saying that just my _doco_ patches are fast enough.

Eli, what I'm trying to say is that the only thing *I* notice that get's
done fast is your doco patches for me. I was certainly not trying to say that
you don't do your other patch reviews fast. This complaint of mine is
specifically subjective, since I only know what's not being done fast
enough for me.

So when I say you are "missing the point", what I really mean to say is,
my above complaint wasn't about you doing your job well, it's about GDB
patch review time, for me, being to slow.

Sorry for the confusion.

> > Even in that respect, Andrew himself stated, 
> > 
> >    It's taken us three months to get through files a-c, simple math tells
> >    us that at that rate we'll finish sometime on '07.  I don't think so.
> 
> Please don't start that again.  I told you right there and then that
> the i18n changes Andrew was referring to were going slow because of
> those who made changes, not because of the review process, since my
> comments on the i18n-related patches were posted at most a couple of
> days after the RFA, and normally just a few hours after the RFA.

Then let me ask you a qustion. Why did he not bother to get them
reviewed? 

> > I'm calling for some type of action that will allow me to get some
> > real work done on GDB.
> 
> Unfortunately, your changes are outside my authority and pretty much
> outside my expertise.  Otherwise, they would have been reviewed eons
> ago.

Well what should I do? Honestly, waiting months for patch review time is
unacceptable. It would be helpful if the patches could be reviewed, on
average, in just a few days.

Thanks,
Bob Rossi

Re: patch review time

[Eli Zaretskii]

> Date: Fri, 4 Mar 2005 09:26:00 -0500
> From: Bob Rossi <bob@brasko.net>
> Cc: gdb@sources.redhat.com
> 
> On Fri, Mar 04, 2005 at 09:33:25AM +0200, Eli Zaretskii wrote:
> > > Date: Thu, 3 Mar 2005 10:00:22 -0500
> > > From: Bob Rossi <bob@brasko.net>
> > > 
> > > I understand that people are busy, which is the very reason my patches
> > > take so long to create. However, from my perspective it simply takes to long, 
> > > to get patch reviews done, except of course doco reviews from Eli :).
> > 
> > I think I generally review all patches within my responsibility and/or
> > area of expertise with the same speed, not only the doco ones.
> 
> I think you are missing the point here Eli.

No, I'm not: _you_ are.

All I wanted to say that _my_ review time is short no matter if it's
with documentation or code patches.  In other words, I was protesting
against your saying that just my _doco_ patches are fast enough.

> Even in that respect, Andrew himself stated, 
> 
>    It's taken us three months to get through files a-c, simple math tells
>    us that at that rate we'll finish sometime on '07.  I don't think so.

Please don't start that again.  I told you right there and then that
the i18n changes Andrew was referring to were going slow because of
those who made changes, not because of the review process, since my
comments on the i18n-related patches were posted at most a couple of
days after the RFA, and normally just a few hours after the RFA.

> I'm calling for some type of action that will allow me to get some
> real work done on GDB.

Unfortunately, your changes are outside my authority and pretty much
outside my expertise.  Otherwise, they would have been reviewed eons
ago.

Re: patch review time

['Bob Rossi']

On Fri, Mar 04, 2005 at 02:58:45PM -0000, Dave Korn wrote:
> ----Original Message----
> >From: Bob Rossi
> >Sent: 04 March 2005 14:26
> 
> > On Fri, Mar 04, 2005 at 09:33:25AM +0200, Eli Zaretskii wrote:
> >>> Date: Thu, 3 Mar 2005 10:00:22 -0500
> >>> From: Bob Rossi 
> >>> 
> >>> I understand that people are busy, which is the very reason my patches
> >>> take so long to create. However, from my perspective it simply takes to
> >>> long, to get patch reviews done, except of course doco reviews from Eli
> >>> :). 
> >> 
> >> I think I generally review all patches within my responsibility and/or
> >> area of expertise with the same speed, not only the doco ones.
> > 
> > I think you are missing the point here Eli. As an outsider of the GDB
> > project I am complaining that I can't make a significant contribution to
> > GDB because of patch review time.
> 
> 
>   Bob, perhaps it would help if you posted links to any outstanding patches
> for which you are awaiting review?

This isn't about a specific patch, it's about the fact that if it take's
1-2 weeks per patch, there is no way I can get in a large amount of
code. For example, I want to convert the MI testsuite to have the
inferior use a separate pty. I would then like to add a syntax checker
to make sure the output of the MI is correct. After that, I would like
to create Tcl data structures that allow the testsuite to do semantic
analysis on the data. I would like to contribute even more after this ...

The problem is, I could submit 3-4 large patches, but GDB for obvious
reasons won't accept such patches until they are broken down into
multiple small patches. If it takes 1-2 weeks for each of these small
patches, that means realistically, it will take months to possibly a
year to get all of the work I want to get done, done.

If you really must see some patches in waiting, 
   http://sources.redhat.com/ml/gdb-patches/2005-01/msg00024.html
   http://sources.redhat.com/ml/gdb-patches/2005-02/msg00248.html

Also, This isn't about what I have waiting now either, it's about the
fact that I usually wait anywhere from between 1 week (unusual) to
several months.

Bob Rossi

RE: patch review time

[Dave Korn]

----Original Message----
>From: Bob Rossi
>Sent: 04 March 2005 14:26

> On Fri, Mar 04, 2005 at 09:33:25AM +0200, Eli Zaretskii wrote:
>>> Date: Thu, 3 Mar 2005 10:00:22 -0500
>>> From: Bob Rossi 
>>> 
>>> I understand that people are busy, which is the very reason my patches
>>> take so long to create. However, from my perspective it simply takes to
>>> long, to get patch reviews done, except of course doco reviews from Eli
>>> :). 
>> 
>> I think I generally review all patches within my responsibility and/or
>> area of expertise with the same speed, not only the doco ones.
> 
> I think you are missing the point here Eli. As an outsider of the GDB
> project I am complaining that I can't make a significant contribution to
> GDB because of patch review time.


  Bob, perhaps it would help if you posted links to any outstanding patches
for which you are awaiting review?


    cheers,
      DaveK
-- 
Can't think of a witty .sigline today....

Re: patch review time

[Bob Rossi]

On Fri, Mar 04, 2005 at 09:33:25AM +0200, Eli Zaretskii wrote:
> > Date: Thu, 3 Mar 2005 10:00:22 -0500
> > From: Bob Rossi <bob@brasko.net>
> > 
> > I understand that people are busy, which is the very reason my patches
> > take so long to create. However, from my perspective it simply takes to long, 
> > to get patch reviews done, except of course doco reviews from Eli :).
> 
> I think I generally review all patches within my responsibility and/or
> area of expertise with the same speed, not only the doco ones.

I think you are missing the point here Eli. As an outsider of the GDB
project I am complaining that I can't make a significant contribution to
GDB because of patch review time. 

I am making the assertion that only MAINTAINERS are capable of getting
any real work done. Even in that respect, Andrew himself stated, 

   It's taken us three months to get through files a-c, simple math tells
   us that at that rate we'll finish sometime on '07.  I don't think so.

I'm calling for some type of action that will allow me to get some
real work done on GDB. Only the MAINTAINERS are capable of fixing this
problem, since I have absolutely no authority. I don't have the power to
just commit my MI patches to GDB and tell you all "I don't think so".

On the other hand, if the maintainers don't care about outside
contributions enough, GDB will certain suffer, as well as the whole
community.

Thanks,
Bob Rossi

Re: patch review time

[Eli Zaretskii]

> Date: Thu, 3 Mar 2005 10:00:22 -0500
> From: Bob Rossi <bob@brasko.net>
> 
> I understand that people are busy, which is the very reason my patches
> take so long to create. However, from my perspective it simply takes to long, 
> to get patch reviews done, except of course doco reviews from Eli :).

I think I generally review all patches within my responsibility and/or
area of expertise with the same speed, not only the doco ones.

patch review time

[Bob Rossi]

Hi,

Is there any way to speed up the patch review time? The problem is, if I
have a small patch here or there, I don't care if it takes a while.

However, if I want to make a more significant change, and it takes a
week or two per small patch, it basically makes it impossible for me to
contribute to GDB.

I understand that people are busy, which is the very reason my patches
take so long to create. However, from my perspective it simply takes to long, 
to get patch reviews done, except of course doco reviews from Eli :).

Any suggestions?

Thanks,
Bob Rossi