Thanks, but I learnt long ago to largely stay away. The message seemed loud and clear, that FreeBSD -CURRENT was unwelcome in any context in the FreeBSD Forums. I ceased showing my version of FreeBSD in my signature, and so on.
This doesn't seem to be the intention. It's just to make clear not to look for support regarding -CURRENT.Thanks, but I learnt long ago to largely stay away. The message seemed loud and clear, that FreeBSD -CURRENT was unwelcome in any context in the FreeBSD Forums. I ceased showing my version of FreeBSD in my signature, and so on.
Then you should be on the mailing lists (and I know you are) not reddit. I don't think I've looked at the place in five years or more and my IQ went up 30 points.I spend far more time in Reddit than here because sadly, discussion of -CURRENT is forbidden.
Forums is targeted at end-users, i.e. RELEASE usersI spend far more time in Reddit than here because sadly, discussion of -CURRENT is forbidden.
But … it isn't At least, that's too simple and isn't stated that way anywhere in forum guides and rules.CURRENT is forbidden
Yes. That's the best way to describe it. Nice
sed 's%John%(failure|???|gh_origin)%g'
sed 's/such\ discussions/universe/'
You're correct. It's not as strick as the way I've described it. That's why it's a good thing I'm not a Mod. If I was, people were getting ban, left and and right. Member numbers never pass 3 digits!But … it isn't At least, that's too simple and isn't stated that way anywhere in forum guides and rules.
All non-trivial changes should be reviewed before they are committed to the repository.
Code review can be an iterative process, which continues until the patch is ready to be committed. Specifically, once a patch is sent out for review, it should receive an explicit “looks good” before it is committed.
I would expect overall support is really the domain of the mailing lists for current. If you need support for current, you're probably not supposed to use it. If you want to give feedback for current then PRs and mailing lists are your destination.Thanks, but I learnt long ago to largely stay away. The message seemed loud and clear, that FreeBSD -CURRENT was unwelcome in any context in the FreeBSD Forums. I ceased showing my version of FreeBSD in my signature, and so on.
Yes. The fact he was able to is the problem.[...snip...]
So basically this guy totally neglected common sense official guidelines. Not good.
Not sure why this hasn't been made more formal with the use of some tools; maybe it's a way to play nice when developers are actually willing to be nice.
Okay, maybe I would request reviews for all changes, not just the non trivial ones, but in general I don't think it's a problem with the process per se. They do the right things, it's just how they implement them in the process.
Even having some respect for the basic concepts of the agile philosophy, I would say some things should be a bit stricter. Unfortunately you can't always expect nice guys.
Now as a reaction to your post I re-read that article again (3rd time). Sorry for the harsh wording: your post is close to complete BS... worst that I could find was that the author states:It could be simply, here's what's wrong, and FreeBSD and PF-Sense need better code review policies in their base.
Instead, the author drags FreeBSD, PF Sense and WireGuard through the mud to get to his written agenda of FreeBSD needs better code review policies in its base. [...]
Acting like there's a fire emergency at FreeBSD, PfSense and WireGuard, and premising, these operating systems are so horrible they almost single-handedly had a cataclysmic failure that's going to end all existence of life is unhealthy.
"I have to set everything on fire and cause panic to get results!"
This method is impulsive and unhealthy.
Well, these are in fact legitimate questions, right?! Are you mixing up your personal aversions against "such extremes as squatter's rights" while at the same time calling for justice for one of those guys who kick each other's ass* to get a seat next to one of the math cracks in a univ's test? Did you verify if the tenants were perfectly legal tenants with a valid legal contract or squatters???How did so much sub-par code make it so far into a major open source operating system? Where was the code review which should have stopped it? And why did both the FreeBSD core team and Netgate seem more focused on the fact that the code was being disparaged than its actual quality?
??? I can not follow. It all happens inside your brain. Your (not-so-free, because we all have a history) decision.The author didn't post both sides of the story. What you accused me of, the author is guilty of. This is my point. I didn't say, Macy was right, I said, both sides of that story weren't presented by the author, when I know there are extremes. Did the author who used the ad hominem do that? So then the author wants us to assume, that directly relates to the next point about software.
If you didn't hear the bells ringing: it was in a release candidate revision. FreeBSD 13-RC something.I also didn't say, there wasn't a coding problem. I'm for method of review being improved, which FreeBSD got the message. I said, this got blown out of proportion for something that didn't hit release.
FreeBSD dragged through the mud? Nowhere. The article explicitely states that contract to implement WireGuard into the FreeBSD kernel was without a deadline (which is highly questionable in consideration of what happened).said that FreeBSD and PfSense got dragged through the mud.
Totally agree! As a retired Oil & Gas industry Internal & Joint Venture Audit Mgr for 2 major oil companies, I'm sure that FreeBSD's image would benefit exponentially if the honchos would admit that their swamp needs draining - not now, but right now! A re-evaluation and restructuring of all internal controls is absolutely essential. Been there! Seen the very same thing! with corporate IS depts. OpenBSD may be silently positioning themselves in the wake of the mis-management?The article highlights issues with holes in the projects governance. A single committer (who happened to belong to a company with questionable business practices) manages to dump 40k lines of unvetted code into HEAD just on a whim. Something is wrong right there with that margin of freedom.
This is a sound article.
And rightly so. I'm going to ask exactly that question when we'll have an Office Hours on that topic. I'm <subcomandante@freenode>. Sidenote: that last e-mail I quoted from <markj@> did read:And why did both the FreeBSD core team and Netgate seem more focused on the fact that the code was being disparaged than its actual quality?
and notDear FreeBSD Community,
In light of the recent commentary on FreeBSD's development practices,
members of the Core team would like to issue the following statement. [...]
or[...] the members of the Core team [...]
[...] all members of the Core team [...]
It was accepted by two users, a gmail address user and grehan, the maintainer of the PowerPC port, even though constantly new crashes and other serious problems surfaced.Yes. The fact he was able to is the problem.
I couldn't find any hint that possibly people in the core team involved themselves in actual review.This I made indirect mention about a while back. It's the format of the FreeBSD core that's the issue, in that there's not one director or controller. Compare this to Linux, where Torvalds will just say yay or nay to such a thing.
...when others started to actually look into the code.All code has reviewer(s), but is this sufficient? It seems this code was working to a number of people's satisfaction, sans the obvious bugs found at the last minute.
List of Wireguard bugfixes imported from pfSense said:Merge the following fixes from https://github.com/pfsense/FreeBSD-src
1940e7d3 Save address of ingress packets to allow wg to work on HA
8f5531f1 Fix connection to IPv6 endpoint
825ed9ee Fix tcpdump for wg IPv6 rx tunnel traffic
2ec232d3 Fix issue with replying to INITIATION messages in server mode
ec77593a Return immediately in wg_init if in DETACH'd state
0f0dde6f Remove unnecessary wg debug printf on transmit
2766dc94 Detect and fix case in wg_init() where sockets weren't cleaned up
b62cc7ac Close the UDP tunnel sockets when the interface has been stopped
Yes.It could be simply, here's what's wrong, and FreeBSD and PF-Sense need better code review policies in their base.
I don't think he does, BUT, he does try.Instead, the author drags FreeBSD, PF Sense and WireGuard through the mud to get to his written agenda of FreeBSD needs better code review policies in its base.
According to the Salter, Macy is on the Most Wanted List. Knowing there's such extremes as squatter's rights, we didn't get both sides of the story. It goes to say, he's a criminal who threw old people down the stairs, then jumping to the next thing about software, without providing a rational relation of two separate subjects. As if the author has a personal vendetta against the committer. The committer is going to lose the commit bit anyway if it hasn't already happened, after all of this.
Because Macy copy/pasted large chunks of GPL, it would have been a problem. This all points back to Macy's integrity as a coder.GPLv2 code going from base to kernel would be an easy mistake to make, and getting help from the WireGuard author could have prevented this. As far as I know, the only reason the module was GPL was so the author could make it work with Linux, and the author had an interest in it working on FreeBSD. As a few have said, it didn't make it to the 13.0 release. Also, rushing things into a coming Release will always be prone to problems.
So it looks to me like that the Core team left him his commit bit even through his four years in jail, while others get booted after 18 months without making a commit. Interesting!In fact, public information about commit bits is easily found. For example, expiry of bits and...
This for itself is no problem IMHO. In contrast, a prisoner has plenty of time, and to do s/th useful can be vital in there.So it looks to me like that the Core team left him his commit bit even through his four years in jail, while others get booted after 18 months without making a commit. Interesting!
Why not discuss -CURRENT on Reddit?… you should be on the mailing lists (and I know you are) not reddit. …
… most redditors are children under 18 years old and never use FreeBSD even though they post there. …
That's certainly not true of /r/freebsd.
That's an outdated edition of the Guide. Instead:I finally found some official information:
https://docs.freebsd.org/en_US.ISO8859-1/articles/committers-guide/pre-commit-review.html
I see 2 things:
> All non-trivial changes should be reviewed before they are committed to the repository.
… totally neglected …