[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: [Xen-devel] [v6][PATCH 10/16] tools: introduce some new parameters to set rdm policy

On 2015/7/8 21:27, Ian Jackson wrote:
Chen, Tiejun writes ("Re: [v6][PATCH 10/16] tools: introduce some new parameters to 
set rdm policy"):
On 2015/7/8 19:47, Ian Jackson wrote:
I appreciate that I have come to this review late.  While I have found
the review conversation quite unsatisfactory, I don't really feel that
I can reject the patch series pending better answers to my questions.

Instead, I feel that I need to make a set of decisions which will
avoid my review comments being a blocker for this series.  After
discussing matters with the other tools maintainers, I have concluded:
Why didn't you guys say anything so long time? If you guys tried to give
us this kind of comments or suggestions as early as possible, I believe
you should can get that expected answer to your question.

As I say, I'm sorry that I have come to this late.  There were other
pressing problems taking my attention, but of course that is my
problem and not your fault.

(If I had been undertaking this review a couple of months ago I would
have been taking a much harder line.)

Certainly I knew this point and trust me, I can image how harder it should be. And honestly, I really agree you should write such a bottom line to every series toward higher quality. So at this point I don't oppose any rigorous requirement.

But what I'm arguing here is that, if you really ask us to reach this standard, just please pay attention to this at the beginning. And then, no matter how bad things are, no matter how difficult your requirements are, it's going to be getting better and at least we shouldn't face current dilemma, because we would have relatively enough time to discuss/correct/improve any concerns. In fact, I also don't like this kind of rush-mode in short time :( Look, now both of us are frustrated.

So I know you guys are very busy but if you can take a little time just to take a rough look at our design, RFC and revision each time, things couldn't be worsen like now. Actually you should notice we're trying to make this process better, like we always post a design before we post any real patch, and we also take some internal review before we submit them in public. But I think this needs two sides together to work out, right?

If you have any good suggestion, just let me know.

Yes, we need to do this better. But this kind of argument really
shouldn't finish just one week.

I think the remaining changes I am asking for are a few small simple
mechanical changes.  If this series does not make 4.6 it will not be
because of this.

I know this is already difficult to walk into 4.6 since several hypervisor patches are not acked completely...

But really thanks for your time and review to make me doing better as possible.

I suggest we defer discussion of the other matters until after the
freeze is in place, since (as I have indicated) I do not regard them
as blockers.  That will also give us some time to cool off, and also
perhaps for other community members to intervene helpfully.

Yes, I also have this similar intention. I'm going to show a TODO list to including anything I should do next, but just wait until we finalize to review this entire series.


Xen-devel mailing list



Lists.xenproject.org is hosted with RackSpace, monitoring our
servers 24x7x365 and backed by RackSpace's Fanatical Support®.