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:<Brian.Stark@lsi.com>
MAID:2
X-Sylpheed-Privacy-System:
X-Sylpheed-Sign:0
SCF:#mh/Mailbox/sent
RMID:#imap/LSI/INBOX	0	E1EC65251D4B3D46BBC0AAA3C0629222B25A27A8@cosmail02.lsi.com
X-Sylpheed-End-Special-Headers: 1
Date: Mon, 1 Feb 2010 18:45:57 -0800
From: Andrew Sharp <andy.sharp@lsi.com>
To: "Stark, Brian" <Brian.Stark@lsi.com>
Subject: Re: code reviews
Message-ID: <20100201184557.71c2b446@ripper.onstor.net>
In-Reply-To: <E1EC65251D4B3D46BBC0AAA3C0629222B25A27A8@cosmail02.lsi.com>
References: <861DA0537719934884B3D30A2666FECC010DFDEF62@cosmail02.lsi.com>
	<4B677404.1070005@lsi.com>
	<861DA0537719934884B3D30A2666FECC010DFDEF8E@cosmail02.lsi.com>
	<20100201173957.42b70c5a@ripper.onstor.net>
	<E1EC65251D4B3D46BBC0AAA3C0629222B25A27A8@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

On Mon, 1 Feb 2010 18:47:00 -0700 "Stark, Brian" <Brian.Stark@lsi.com>
wrote:

> I would like to see Max's reply, which I won't automatically get
> since I was bcc'ed.

I'll forward whatever he sends me.

Bill is really worked up over Max's hegemony on this, running around
frothing at the mouth.  I'm trying to calm him, it's just Max, don't
let it get to you.

> As you and I have discussed before, I have heard some complaints from
> others outside of TuxStor about the code review process within the
> project.  This was particularly when it was TuxRX, and it was just
> you and Bill.  From Max's original email, it looks like this has come
> back up.

The complaints are autobiographical, in my opinion.  I was happy to
distribute the load, but Rendell and Bill couldn't muster the discipline
to do the job properly, and things got majorly screwed up in just two
changelists that went in with basically a hand wave.  So I changed
things back to having to go through me.

People have to be realistic.  If they spent 2 months on a changelist,
it likely can't be reviewed in 48 hours, not responsibly, anyway.

Bill sat on Max's changelist for more than a month and didn't even look
at it, and then gave it to me.  I turned it around in a week.  I'd say
there's nothing to complain about there, unless you're Max, and he'd be
right.  I apologized to Max for it taking so long.  I finished Bill's
today.  It took quite a while, because he makes many, many, gratuitous
changes to comments and file headings and stuff, and you have no choice
but to plow through those.

The other thing is that I'm trying to guide this porting project, but
Bill has proven resistant to my attempts to nudge him in the right
direction, hence I'm falling back on code reviews to try and manage
that.  I regret not putting my foot down harder about moving his code
into the kernel module because doing this header munging thing has taken
him two months.  And he was pretty slap-dash about certain parts of it,
too.  Stuff that I've asked him multiple times in the past to improve
upon.  But if he fixes half of what I've asked him to fix, we will be
looking a lot better than we were a month ago.

> I'm curious to hear your thoughts on the last few emails that I've
> sent.  Feel free to reply or we can discuss tomorrow during our 1-1.
> Of course, this assumes that you actually show up this time and buy
> me some coffee (or something stronger)...

I didn't send you my reply to the other thing.  It went to the draft
folder.

> 
> 
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Andrew Sharp [mailto:andy.sharp@lsi.com] 
> Sent: Monday, February 01, 2010 5:40 PM
> To: Kozlovsky, Maxim
> Subject: Re: code reviews
> 
> 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
