Hi,
I can see your frustration. You like to be appreciated for the work done
on creating a feature/patch you want to share with the world. That is what
OSS is all about. On the other hand the "project owner' has to walk a
fine line, getting enough committers in, who don't get compensation, while
assuring quality of the work being done. This results in a varying
response time, simple due to the fact that it's extra time the committers
spend on this, besides their day job, familiy life, sports, etc.
I for instance am preparing a serious telecom infrastructure overhaul in a
major hospital, a 24 hour operation. Besides that famaily life and
training with my sports team doesn't leave as much time as I would like to
spend on some ideas I have for Wireshark, as well as reviewing patches.
Making committers 'responsible' for different parts of the code base won't
really work in this scenario. In the best case you'll get responses like
"your patch is scheduled for review", after which it may take the same
amount of time, or even longer, for the stuff to be actually looked at. In
the worst case the committers will resign. I would, since I can't keep
that kind of committment. For me, and most of us I think, it's a best
effort thing.
So where does that leave us? It's a community thing, not a business. That
has all sorts of effects on the way we interact and go forward. It is not
ideal, but neither is a business. All we can do is petition the project
leader to get enough committers in so on the one hand the backlog won't
get too big, while on the other hand they have enough to do. A tricky
balance to strike.
Just my $0.02
Jaap
On Thu, 8 Mar 2007, Richard van der Hoff wrote:
> Douglas Pratley wrote:
> > I submitted two patches earlier this year:
> > ...
> > Can anybody tell me their current status? That is:
>
> To follow up what Doug has said, I have to say that I've found my recent
> experiences in getting patches applied less than positive. Anders
> applied quite a few, but there was one particular patch which I had to
> ask _four_ times to be reviewed before anything happened. Whilst I
> understand that everyone is busy, I'd like to give the developer's
> perspective here and point out that it is incredibly frustrating to
> spend a few days working on a new feature, polishing a patch and
> submitting it, only to have it ignored. Nobody is suggesting that you
> should apply patches without appropriate review - even a reply
> explaining why the patch can't be reviewed right now would be something.
> Ultimately you are only going to end up alienating your developer base,
> which, particularly for a product like Wireshark with its millions of
> dissectors, would be a disaster.
>
> Might I suggest that what is needed is a change to the procedures for
> patch submission, review, and application. It seems to me that the
> current problem is that no individual committer has responsibility for
> reviewing and applying patches - so they tend to get ignored in the hope
> that somebody else will have more time. How about if you required
> patches to be submitted to the Bugzilla, with the responsibility for
> different parts of the system divided amongst the committers? Then at
> least everybody could keep track of what's on the todo list, and patches
> wouldn't get lost in the general noise of the mailing list as I fear
> they currently do.
>
> Anyway, it's not for me to tell you how to run your project, but I do
> think it's only fair to point out that if the status quo continues, you
> are going to end up with a lot of frustrated developers.
>
> Regards,
>
> Richard
>
