First, sorry for late response. cglogic, thank you for bringing up this issue again since I nearly forgot that this issue was still open.
Warner, as I can't access to my FreeBSD instance until the end of August, but I can still edit and push the code through my Arm Mac. This means that I can't test the updated code on my machine, but I can join the review process and listen to change proposals. I'll open a Github PR in a few hours. (The phabricator review will stay opened just in case) On Monday, July 22nd, 2024 at 5:08 AM, Warner Losh <i...@bsdimp.com> wrote: > On Sun, Jul 21, 2024 at 2:03 PM cglogic <cglo...@protonmail.com> wrote: > >> 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. > > Ah yes. I've been in touch with the author for other things, and somehow > thought it was you.... I'll reach out to him via other means... > > Warner
