Re: [coreboot] Document for review: coreboot Gerrit Etiquette and Guidelines
Oct. 30, 2015
9:56 a.m.
Possibly an appendix defining coreboot leadership would help. On Fri, Oct 30, 2015 at 9:51 AM Martin Roth <gaumless@gmail.com> wrote: > Hi Alex, > Thanks for voicing your concerns. I do think that most of the > issues you bring up are handled, or aren't as big issues you make them > out to be. As always, I could be wrong, so I'd again invite others to > give their opinions. I've tried to address your issues below. > > > ... the "maintainer" is given almost absolute veto power > > in all matters relating to that code. > ... > > There are also no responsibilities defined for a "maintainer", despite > > such person being given near-inter-stellar of power. > I did try to define maintainers in the document: > * Try to coordinate with platform maintainers when making changes to > platforms. The platform maintainers are the users who initially pushed > the > code for that platform, as well as users who have made significant > changes > to a platform. To find out who maintains a piece of code, please use > util/scripts/maintainers.go or refer to the original author of the code > in > git log. > I'm not certain how "Try to coordinate" is being read as "almost > absolute veto power" or "near-inter-stellar of power". > > > Concerns from external reviewers often get > > ignored or brushed off as "don't care". > This is absolutely addressed by these three guidelines: > * Respond to anyone who has taken the time to review your patches. > * If there have been comments or discussion on a patch, verify that the > comments have been addressed before giving a +2. > * If there is still ongoing discussion to a patch, try to wait for a > conclusion to the discussion before submitting it to the tree. > > > I've seen plenty of cases where patches have been -2'd > > by W@g.com until other @g.com patches were merged, only for the -2 to be > > removed once it was on the contributor to rebase his work. > I haven't seen this, but if you see a situation where you feel like > someone is being treated unfairly, please bring it to the attention of > the coreboot leadership or post something to the mailing list. > > > This then creates another significant issue: the bar for contributions > > from such teams is very low, while anyone else experiences a much higher > > bar. This has many times resulted in sub-optimal code being merged, and > > great contributions getting delayed and abandoned. > Again, I feel like if you comment on these patches, the rules above > should handle these issues. And again, if you feel like something is > unfair, bring attention to it. > > > ... Raptor Eng. was asking around $15000 to upstream ... > > All of a sudden, we've made coreboot a very expensive > > project to support. > Additionally, I specifically reached out to tpearson with these > guidelines to get his feedback before they were posted. I have tried > to address the concerns he brought up. If you (or anyone else) feel > like there's something specific we can add here that will help him or > future developers get code submitted, please recommend the addition. > > > Then there's talk about a vague "coreboot leadership"... > Patrick addressed this in the review - here's Stefan talking about > coreboot leadership: > http://blogs.coreboot.org/blog/2015/05/11/on-coreboot-leadership/ > > -- > coreboot mailing list: coreboot@coreboot.org > http://www.coreboot.org/mailman/listinfo/coreboot >
3732
Age (days ago)
3732
Last active (days ago)
0 comments
1 participants
participants (1)
-
ron minnich