Re: Development practices?

[Konrad Rzeszutek Wilk]

. snip..
> >>>>> From what I have gathered so far the not enough reviewers
> >>>>>is tied in folks being overworked - so there simply was no
> >>>>>point of posting on the mailing list as nobody had the time
> >>>>>to review it or test it properly?
> >>>>>
> >>>
> >>>Hi Konrad,
> >>>
> >>>back in 2008/2009 (when Marco Gerards gave over Maintainance to Robert
> >>>Millan) there were indeed not much people actively reviewing code.
> >>>
> >>>Active people on the mailing list was just given commit access. It was
> >>>expected that they only commit stuff without posting which doesn't need
> >>>a review and complies with the rules back at that time.
> >>>
> >>>Due to me missing a few years on the mailing list, I can't tell you
> >>>unfortunately how it compares to today.
> >>>
> >>
> >>Not much changes as far as I can tell.
> >
> >OK.
> >
> >What qualifies as needing an review? Personal preference by
> >the patch author?
> >
> 
> I suppose, common sense. When I was given commit access, it was for
> "committing after review" so I still sent all patches to the list. Then it
> happened that Vladimir dropped off list for a long time and I tried to pick
> up obvious bug fixes from list or bug tracker to keep things going.
> 
> I would say, any non-trivial bug fix or feature change needs to be posted
> first.
> 
> I would love to have every patch posted and reviewed bug given current level
> of activity it is simply unrealistic.

I see. From my perspective we are paid to work on the hobbies (Xen, Linux, etc)
so the activity level is high since we have 8 hours a day to focus on it
(minus bug activities, lunch, etc).

While GRUB2 is all volunteer with whatever time can be spared?

What if the companies that employ the committers allowed one day a week
to focus on GRUB2 review/maintaince/etc? Would that help?

Or is it unrealistic to expect that from committers employer's?

> 
> >Thank you for answering my questions!
> >
>