On Sunday, July 21st, 2024 at 6:54 AM, Warner Losh <i...@bsdimp.com> wrote:
> On Sat, Jul 20, 2024 at 1:59 AM cglogic <cglo...@protonmail.com> wrote: > >> Hello FreeBSD community, >> >> After Jason Evans stepped aside from maintaining jemalloc in FreeBSD, it's >> not updating in time anymore. >> Version 5.3.0 was released May 6, 2022 and FreeBSD still not imported it >> into the tree. >> >> There is a pending review https://reviews.freebsd.org/D41421 from Aug 11, >> 2023. >> I'm successfully running FreeBSD/amd64 system with D41421 applied for 8 >> months, as well as many other people. >> >> Can it be reviewed and committed to CURRENT? >> Or, if there is no committers willing to do it, can commit bit be given to >> submitter or another person willing to do this? >> >> It's very disappointing when users spend their time to fill such gaps and >> their efforts just ignored by the developers. >> >> Every year FreeBSD Community Survey asking about user experience in >> contributing to FreeBSD. >> >> Here you can see an example of such contributing. > > First, thank you for being persistent and continuing to bring it up. It's > important to do that to make sure this (and your many other) contribution > doesn't fall on the floor. > > And to be fair, we're only 3 months since the last update. Still, quite a bit > longer than you should have to wait, but not nearly the year the original > date suggests. > > And this is a perfect storm of "how the project is bad at accepting > contributions": > (1) The original submission was close to the 14 branch creation time. This > meant that we weren't well prepared to look at it since it is such an > invasive change (at least on its surface). It also slowed the initial > response... > (2) There was a number of back and forth requests for changes, which took > time to sort out... > (3) The size of this is huge, well beyond the capacity of Phabricator to > review accurately... > (4) It's a vendor import. That means we can't just drop the Phabricator > review into the tree... > (5) It's phabricator: this is a great tool for developers, but we have a > terrible track record of using it for intake from new contributors. We don't > have any oversight at all over this tool, at there's at best tepid and luke > warm attempts to look for drop balls. > > All of these things are a terrible experience. I can only apologize. These > days, we might steer this towards github, but the 'vendor import' means you > really need someone on the inside, or you need to be on the inside to make > that work. > > So, how to move forward? Well, I'd like to propose the following: > (1) submit all the other Phabricator reviews you have open (they are mostly > good, or close to good) to github. Github is being actively managed and will > make it faster to get things it. It's a much better tool for new contributors > (and even frequent contributors of smallish things). > (2) I should do an vendor import of 5.3.0 from github, and do the merge to a > branch and push that to github. You can then layer on your changes and those > can be reviewed more closely as a pull request against the branch I push. I > suspect that most of the issues are sorted out already > (3) I'll land it via that route... > > And, if the sum of the other pull requests and this are good (and I suspect > they will be), then we can talk about commit bits and such. > > It's experiences like this which is why I'm trying to stand up github pull > requests as a reliable way to get things and and the best place to send > people... > > Thanks again for persisting, and also for expressing this criticism that we > (hopefully) can use to make it better. > > Warner Hello. I'm not the author of D41421. Just applied the patch to test it 8 months ago. And recently discovered that it's still not committed. I can't copy your message to Phabricator because don't have an account. Please, if you have time, help the author in D41421. Thank you.
