[haiku-development] Re: [haiku-development] Re: [haiku-development] Re: Commit access for Andreas Färber
- From: Stephan Assmus <superstippi@xxxxxx>
- To: haiku-development@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
- Date: Tue, 15 Jun 2010 21:06:27 +0200
On 2010-06-15 at 19:26:54 [+0200], Ingo Weinhold <ingo_weinhold@xxxxxx> wrote:
> On 2010-06-15 at 18:51:56 [+0200], Axel Dörfler <axeld@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> wrote:
> > Ingo Weinhold <ingo_weinhold@xxxxxx> wrote:
> > > On 2010-06-15 at 13:46:48 [+0200], Axel Dörfler <axeld@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> > > > wrote:
> > > > Oliver Tappe <zooey@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> > > > > There was one objection, so how do we proceed with this
> > > > > proposition?
> > > > Since Ingo was the only one who object, I guess he should tell if
> > > > he
> > > > would feel comfortable in adding Andreas, or if we should do a vote
> > > > (which would probably have the same outcome, anyway, given our
> > > > previous
> > > > track record :-)).
> > > I haven't heard any convincing arguments ("It's not fair." is not an
> > > argument and I don't see how the "But if committer X would start
> > > kernel
> > > development..." would apply).
> >
> > I haven't seen much problems with the patches from Andreas that
> > affected the whole kernel - there were mostly subtle and welcome bug
> > fixes. And since the PPC port is not really something where code quality
> > is a major issue IMO, I personally don't see a problem with it when
> > Andreas "plays" with it a bit. Kernel development has a certain
> > learning curve, and porting work is not the worst part to get involved
> > with it.
> >
> > If you prefer to review all of his patches in a timely manner, I
> > wouldn't object to this either, but I don't really see the point in
> > keeping both of you busy for nothing.
>
> Nope, my point is exactly that I don't have the time and motivation to
> review all patches in a timely manner, which is why the "commit first,
> maybe review later" approach will probably result in a lot of code not
> being reviewed throroughly at all. Unless you intend to do that, that is.
So either way, you are blocking someone from becoming a new contributor. The
kernel is critical, I agree, but you and Axel don't always make perfect
commits either. For example, I am still seeing file corruption regularily,
and initially the regressions after the pretty stable kernel of r32724 (?)
were much worse. Everyone introduces regressions from time to time, it's all
a work in progress. That's why I think it's not fair. IMHO Andreas has made
every effort to show he would be a great team player and his work would have
reasonable quality, at least. Gaining a regular contributor like him is IMHO
more important than preventing occasional regressions even in critical
components. At the moment, Andreas' work wouldn't even affect the x86 kernel.
> > > Given that no one else seems to object, we
> > > can save us the vote, I guess.
> >
> > Does that mean you're okay with it in the end?
>
> Nope.
Irritating how to procede from here. :-)
Best regards,
-Stephan
Other related posts: