AF:
NF:0
PS:10
SRH:1
SFN:
DSR:
MID:
CFG:
PT:0
S:andy.sharp@lsi.com
RQ:
SSV:mhbs.lsil.com
NSV:
SSH:
R:<Maxim.Kozlovsky@lsi.com>,<brian.stark@lsi.com>
MAID:2
X-Sylpheed-Privacy-System:
X-Sylpheed-Sign:0
SCF:#mh/Mailbox/sent
RMID:#imap/LSI/INBOX	0	861DA0537719934884B3D30A2666FECC010DFDEF8E@cosmail02.lsi.com
X-Sylpheed-End-Special-Headers: 1
Date: Mon, 1 Feb 2010 17:39:57 -0800
From: Andrew Sharp <andy.sharp@lsi.com>
To: "Kozlovsky, Maxim" <Maxim.Kozlovsky@lsi.com>
Bcc: Brian Stark <brian.stark@lsi.com>
Subject: Re: code reviews
Message-ID: <20100201173957.42b70c5a@ripper.onstor.net>
In-Reply-To: <861DA0537719934884B3D30A2666FECC010DFDEF8E@cosmail02.lsi.com>
References: <861DA0537719934884B3D30A2666FECC010DFDEF62@cosmail02.lsi.com>
	<4B677404.1070005@lsi.com>
	<861DA0537719934884B3D30A2666FECC010DFDEF8E@cosmail02.lsi.com>
Organization: LSI
X-Mailer: Sylpheed-Claws 2.6.0 (GTK+ 2.8.20; x86_64-pc-linux-gnu)
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit

Hi Max,

You know you're completely dillusional sometimes, right? ~:^)

I'm fine with you herding over the FP code: as far as I'm concerned,
you're the team lead on the FP code and call the shots there.
Everything else is my responsibility, and I need to guide the coding
and porting in the txrx areas, especially with these guys.  With the
exception of the clustering code which would be submitted to Chris if
you want to live ~:^)  Of course I *always* welcome your input.  Mutual
code we should work out on a case-by-case basis if we don't agree, but
I don't see us disagreeing much.  To be honest, it has been a tad
difficult to get Bill to use perforce correctly when moving code, but
I'm still trying to get that to improve.

As far as functional changes go, there should not be any, except in the
areas where things have to be ported, and of course the networking.
Any functional changes either have to go through you for the FP stuff,
or go through the design review process.  But as I said, there
shouldn't be any.

Rendell's working on the vsvr code, we agree on that, yes?

Thanks,

a

On Mon, 1 Feb 2010 18:00:23 -0700 "Kozlovsky, Maxim"
<Maxim.Kozlovsky@lsi.com> wrote:

> I am sorry that you were insulted, I was simply explaining how the
> things are organized. I already am the "lead code reviewer" for any
> of the code areas I mentioned, and I have not heard anything to the
> contrary yet. 
> 
> The process you suggested will not work. I have to review the changes
> to the listed directories. I can guarantee 48 hours turnaround time
> for reasonably sized change lists.
> 
> -----Original Message-----
> From: William Fisher [mailto:bill.fisher@lsi.com] 
> Sent: Monday, February 01, 2010 4:38 PM
> To: Kozlovsky, Maxim
> Cc: Stark, Brian; Fong, Rendell; Sharp, Andy; Fisher, Bill
> Subject: Re: code reviews
> 
> Kozlovsky, Maxim wrote:
> > Hello,
> > 
> > I think there is some confusion on Bill's side on how the code
> > reviews are done. It is not a voting process.
> 
> 
> For example, you cannot check in changes to the following directories 
> without my approval:
> 
> 
> Sm-nfs, Sm-cifs, Sm-pkt, Sm-req-queue, Sm-tpl, Sm-search, Ssc-vsd, 
> Sm-evm, Sm-dcache, Sm-evm-srvr,
> 
> Sm-dp-proxy, Sm-vsvr, Sm-open, Sm-cifs-rpc, Sm-netbios, Sm-rmc,
> Ssc-rmc, sm-lock Sm-whatever Ssc-everything else,
> 
> 
> I must have missed about dozen or so.  You can send code for review
> to however many people you like,
> 
> but in the end there is only one person who decides on what is
> checked in to a particular directory.
> 
> You can't ask Andy or Rendell to review changes to ssc-cluster, this 
> should be Chris.
> 
> The process can be altered only for trivial changes. For example 
> everybody can review the
> 
> change of replacing malloc-api.h with linux/slab.h, or printf with 
> printk, or %lld with %ld in a bunch of files,
> 
> in fact it will be a waste of time to ask 3 different persons to do
> that.
> > 
> > Max
> > 
> > 
> This is totally rude and very insulting to me and
> probably Rendell and Andy as well. They can speak
> for themselves
> 
> Andy and I have been working on this code for over a year just
> fine with the existing code review process we have been using.
> 
> This is Brian's call NOT yours IMHO.
> 
> If he appoints you the "lead code reviewer" then your
> algorithm will apply. In the mean time, we'll continue
> the "team" approach.
> 
> Andy and I have spent MONTHS editing the txrx code into
> the Linux tree and have done LOTS of work to preserve
> the EEE API's to made the code as "portable" as possible.
> 
> The header files were a complete mess, lots of stuff in
> various bogus places, 100's of files including header
> files that are not required nor used. Virtually poor
> laying of the data structure includes for such as large
> software project. Don't get us started. We have kept
> our mouth shut and simply edited the files to "fix"
> the problem and move toward a more consistent set of
> source code. If you disagree, then so be it.
> 
> I suggested to Brian a new approach, anyone of the three
> of us can review the code, only one is required and it
> should be done within 48-hours of the request.
> 
> Rendell and I have been blocked for some time due to getting
> "agreement" and review of our changes.
> 
> -- Bill
