Peter Tribble <[email protected]> wrote: > > BTW: How did you create your statistic? > > > > run git log through awk, counting "Reviewed By:" for each "Approved By:" > > > > I see that 2964, 2408, 2831, 852, 509, 345, 225, 244, 59, 58, 38, 2, have > > no > > review > > > OK, let's check that.
If you believe that your answer is correct, you need to change your script or check the log file more thouroghly with your eyes. Just because one of many putbacks related to a bug entry did get a code review does not verify that the whole change did get a code review. ... > Nope. Your statement about there being no review is false. Your final claim definitely does not match what happened. > and I know that related code is buggy in a way that could have been > > avoided by a code review. > > > In that case, why did you not review the code? And if you know of bugs, > what issues have you logged? Why didn't you help to make this possible at that time? > If you don't participate, you are the only one to blame. If you don't make this possible it is you who need to be blamed. > > In other words, a quick check identifies more than > > 12 putbacks without code review and some of them have visible bugs; my > > method > > to look for those putbacks is very simple > > > Too simple; I suspect you're finding the post-commit fixups rather than the > genuine > commit. No, but if you did really check the log in depth you know this already. > > In addition, there is 354 which has been added even though there have been > > several unfixed bugs identified by the code review of the related code. > > > > BTW: These bugs are still unfixed. > > > > Please quote the bugids you have logged to report that. Given that you most likely are here since at least September 2010, you should know that I explained the bugs to no avail: the buggy code has been integrated without a change. Given that fact, it is most improbable that filing a bug did result in change, so I did not file a bug to the bugtracking system ... the problems have been explained in depth without reaction. ...but I did something better than filing bug reports. I offered own code that works correctly and that implements more features. You are still free to use this working implementation instead of the putback in question. So if you like to improve Illumos, you just need to signal that you are willing to collaborate. This is how OpenSource works. > > IPS misses the meta data that is needed to permit a split / & /usr > > > > You can run split / and /usr with both IPS and SVR4 distributions today. > > (You probably wouldn't want to, as the dependency tree is getting > sufficiently > dense that it's pulling in too much of /usr, but that's not a packaging > issue.) ??? The SVr4 packages come with a separate dependency tree for / & /usr and this information is missing in IPS. Jörg -- EMail:[email protected] (home) Jörg Schilling D-13353 Berlin [email protected] (work) Blog: http://schily.blogspot.com/ URL: http://cdrecord.org/private/ http://sf.net/projects/schilytools/files/' ------------------------------------------ illumos-discuss Archives: https://illumos.topicbox.com/groups/discuss/discussions/T784fc87098d66577-M9a24eb7cf7e171c12c617468 Powered by Topicbox: https://topicbox.com
