Wireshark-dev: Re: [Wireshark-dev] Improvments for NVMeOF dissector
From: "Constantine Gavrilov" <CONSTG@xxxxxxxxxx>
Date: Sun, 21 Mar 2021 15:25:42 +0200
Pascal, thank you again.
Two days is not the end of the world. Initial review has taken one week, and that was a bit long for me, but it is not the end of the world either. Anders comment was a good answer, because he said that he could not do it, and he did exactly what I asked -- he has let me know.
It is more a problem of setting the expectations. Perhaps, I do not understand how the process works. But after investing many hours and before continuing to do so, I need to know one thing -- that my work is getting noticed and will be eventually considered. It is even OK that it is eventually rejected.
As I have said, there is no assignment process, not for the contributor. Even if someone comments on the MR, it is not changing status, and I cannot expect the same person to continue the review. I simply do not know what to expect.
Is opening a merge request sufficient guarantee that someone will look into this? Shall I request on the list? Perhaps there are certain core developers who are more invested in RDMA/NVMEoF whom I shall ask?
The uniqueness of the situation here is that I would like to make significant contributions, and I can move fast. I am not saying people shall accommodate me, I am just saying that I want and I need to move fast. Having a private tree that is far "ahead" of development tree is a burden for me because of changes and review fixes. So, I would like to ask again "How can make it better, if I have a lot of code to contribute in a particular area -- NVMEoF?". Is core developer access out of the question?
--
----------------------------------------
Constantine Gavrilov
Storage Architect
Master Inventor
Tel-Aviv Storage Lab IDT Lead
Tel-Aviv IBM Storage Lab
1 Azrieli Center, Tel-Aviv
Phone: +972-3-6897318
Fax: +972-3-6897230
----------------------------------------
From: Pascal Quantin <pascal@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
To: Developer support list for Wireshark <wireshark-dev@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Date: 03/21/2021 02:55 PM
Subject: [EXTERNAL] Re: [Wireshark-dev] Improvments for NVMeOF dissector
Sent by: "Wireshark-dev" <wireshark-dev-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Hi Constantine, 21 mars 2021 13:40:22 Constantine Gavrilov <CONSTG@xxxxxxxxxx>: > Pascal, thank you for your answer. > > What would be a reasonable time to wait? A week, two weeks, a month? Long review times a problem by themselves,
Hi Constantine,
21 mars 2021 13:40:22 Constantine Gavrilov <CONSTG@xxxxxxxxxx>:
> Pascal, thank you for your answer.
>
> What would be a reasonable time to wait? A week, two weeks, a month? Long review times a problem by themselves, since I cannot move ahead. But it is not even a problem of waiting as much, as it is a problem of communication loss. Dropping a line " will review it within 3 weeks" or "cannot handle it, too busy" "or will review later" is far less problematic then ignoring the question "can you review it, please?"
Come on, it has been two days, including the weekend. I hardly see where there is a communication issue here, simply people that do not spend all their time behind their computer screen. To be honest I would have better understood your push if it had been a full week without any feedback, but not after one day (long review time? That's really what you are thinking?). I see some other open source projects where the submitted patches do not get any attention during weeks. We could definitely do better, but I do not think we are the worst.
>
>
> I have nothing personal to gain from this. It is true that I am using wireshark for my work on NVMEoF, but if I cannot interest the community with this work, I can fork the tree locally and continue without submitting the changes. Doing this for community was an act of contibution and a hard work, but I will not impose if there is no cooperation. As I have said, I do not think recognition. If there is an interest and someone will come up to reveiew the changes, than I continue to contibute. If the attitude is "do not bother us", why should I care?
We appreciate your contribution, and if you think this is not the case please give some examples. I'm just reminding you (as Anders did already) that we are volonteersand not paid for the time we spend on the project, and that we also have a professional and personal life that have their own constraints, and priority over the Wireshark project. Having a few days delay is not the end of the world, fortunately.
Best regards,
Pascal.
>
>
> --
> ----------------------------------------
> Constantine Gavrilov
> Storage Architect
> Master Inventor
> Tel-Aviv Storage Lab IDT Lead
> Tel-Aviv IBM Storage Lab
> 1 Azrieli Center, Tel-Aviv
> Phone: +972-3-6897318
> Fax: +972-3-6897230
> ----------------------------------------
>
>
>
> From: Pascal Quantin <pascal@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> To: Developer support list for Wireshark <wireshark-dev@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> Date: 03/21/2021 12:02 PM
> Subject: [EXTERNAL] Re: [Wireshark-dev] Improvments for NVMeOF dissector
> Sent by: "Wireshark-dev" <wireshark-dev-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> ----------------------------------------
>
>
>
> Hi Constantine, If I read the review history correctly, you were asked to perform some changes that you did 2 days ago. This is not abnormal not to get any feedback in such a short period, and that does not mean the receiver lost interest but
> Hi Constantine,
>
> If I read the review history correctly, you were asked to perform some changes that you did 2 days ago. This is not abnormal not to get any feedback in such a short period, and that does not mean the receiver lost interest but simply that he is busy.
> So my suggestion is to be a bit more patient as reviewers usually do their best according to the time they can give to the project. Being too pushy can give the exact opposite of what you would like. Just my two cents.
>
> Best regards,
> Pascal.
>
> 21 mars 2021 10:47:02 Constantine Gavrilov <CONSTG@xxxxxxxxxx>:
>
> Sometime ago, I started to work on NVMEoF dissector. I have already contributed the number of fixes and improvements and they have already been merged.
>
> My goal is to have a full dissection for connection establishment, management and IO flow, and I would like to move on quickly.
>
> The goal is to contribute back to the community. I am not seeking recognition -- I have plenty of that in my place of work. The goal is to help and express my gratitude to the project.
>
> After initial changes merged, I am stuck at getting my current merge request (_#17282[/wireshark/wireshark/-/issues/17282]_)reviewed. I understand that this is a volunteer project and all people are busy. But I do have a problem with broken line of communication. My personal opinion is that if a core developer "picks up" the merge request and has review comments, they shall follow up on the requested changes that a contributor has provided. If they loose focus or interest, they shall inform the contributor, instead of just "disappearing". As a contributor, I can control any form of merge request assignment or have control over who will look at the merge request.
>
> The fact that people are busy goes both ways -- for contributors as well as core developers. I am looking into improving my contribution experience for NVMEoF. Perhaps there is a core developer who is willing to look at the changes and has sufficient interest and available time to work with me on reviewing NVMEoF dissector changes? As it stands now, I feel blocked from contributing (just because the speed of the review and people dropping off). I am busy and will eventually have hard choices to make...
>
> Perhaps I can get approval to join core developers?
>
>
> --
> ----------------------------------------
> Constantine Gavrilov
> Storage Architect
> Master Inventor
> Tel-Aviv Storage Lab IDT Lead
> Tel-Aviv IBM Storage Lab
> 1 Azrieli Center, Tel-Aviv
> ----------------------------------------
> ___________________________________________________________________________
> Sent via: Wireshark-dev mailing list <wireshark-dev@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> Archives: _https://www.wireshark.org/lists/wireshark-dev[https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__www.wireshark.org_lists_wireshark-2Ddev&d=DwQFaQ&c=jf_iaSHvJObTbx-siA1ZOg&r=XzHrT4jzZ2lsSkPL8XE51gcxM30kcdBgWfG2QV6bUpw&m=Pm_WNGTMDJaxPl3pTqYwOTZbE8nLo6Gj17vih_olCHI&s=Ny-xFzcNeX-gmDmEJffp5ViSSqcpcwY20i-ucIZkfsM&e=]_
> Unsubscribe: _https://www.wireshark.org/mailman/options/wireshark-dev[https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__www.wireshark.org_mailman_options_wireshark-2Ddev&d=DwQFaQ&c=jf_iaSHvJObTbx-siA1ZOg&r=XzHrT4jzZ2lsSkPL8XE51gcxM30kcdBgWfG2QV6bUpw&m=Pm_WNGTMDJaxPl3pTqYwOTZbE8nLo6Gj17vih_olCHI&s=ERRL9XIUdCMm1gTsUIesNYxjrpJfQn6aofoIV_QnZSo&e=]_
> mailto:wireshark-dev-request@xxxxxxxxxxxxx?subject=unsubscribe___________________________________________________________________________
> Sent via: Wireshark-dev mailing list <wireshark-dev@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> Archives: https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__www.wireshark.org_lists_wireshark-2Ddev&d=DwIGaQ&c=jf_iaSHvJObTbx-siA1ZOg&r=XzHrT4jzZ2lsSkPL8XE51gcxM30kcdBgWfG2QV6bUpw&m=Pm_WNGTMDJaxPl3pTqYwOTZbE8nLo6Gj17vih_olCHI&s=Ny-xFzcNeX-gmDmEJffp5ViSSqcpcwY20i-ucIZkfsM&e=
> Unsubscribe: https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__www.wireshark.org_mailman_options_wireshark-2Ddev&d=DwIGaQ&c=jf_iaSHvJObTbx-siA1ZOg&r=XzHrT4jzZ2lsSkPL8XE51gcxM30kcdBgWfG2QV6bUpw&m=Pm_WNGTMDJaxPl3pTqYwOTZbE8nLo6Gj17vih_olCHI&s=ERRL9XIUdCMm1gTsUIesNYxjrpJfQn6aofoIV_QnZSo&e=
> mailto:wireshark-dev-request@xxxxxxxxxxxxx?subject=unsubscribe
>
>
> ___________________________________________________________________________
> Sent via: Wireshark-dev mailing list <wireshark-dev@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> Archives: https://www.wireshark.org/lists/wireshark-dev
> Unsubscribe: https://www.wireshark.org/mailman/options/wireshark-dev
> mailto:wireshark-dev-request@xxxxxxxxxxxxx?subject=unsubscribe___________________________________________________________________________
Sent via: Wireshark-dev mailing list <wireshark-dev@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Archives: https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__www.wireshark.org_lists_wireshark-2Ddev&d=DwIGaQ&c=jf_iaSHvJObTbx-siA1ZOg&r=XzHrT4jzZ2lsSkPL8XE51gcxM30kcdBgWfG2QV6bUpw&m=PuhCYBiCtsTJ3lqzceYSkjMcODRvNjfQFAkyH_ldBig&s=tljg4uD-pQVz8JUV5YtJQo5iIULUeaJFGZRcKVP8T5k&e=
Unsubscribe: https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__www.wireshark.org_mailman_options_wireshark-2Ddev&d=DwIGaQ&c=jf_iaSHvJObTbx-siA1ZOg&r=XzHrT4jzZ2lsSkPL8XE51gcxM30kcdBgWfG2QV6bUpw&m=PuhCYBiCtsTJ3lqzceYSkjMcODRvNjfQFAkyH_ldBig&s=k-_1Y5uMOEKxF4SK91iRR15QPh0ktE95-3lC2-LGpy4&e=
mailto:wireshark-dev-request@xxxxxxxxxxxxx?subject=unsubscribe
Two days is not the end of the world. Initial review has taken one week, and that was a bit long for me, but it is not the end of the world either. Anders comment was a good answer, because he said that he could not do it, and he did exactly what I asked -- he has let me know.
It is more a problem of setting the expectations. Perhaps, I do not understand how the process works. But after investing many hours and before continuing to do so, I need to know one thing -- that my work is getting noticed and will be eventually considered. It is even OK that it is eventually rejected.
As I have said, there is no assignment process, not for the contributor. Even if someone comments on the MR, it is not changing status, and I cannot expect the same person to continue the review. I simply do not know what to expect.
Is opening a merge request sufficient guarantee that someone will look into this? Shall I request on the list? Perhaps there are certain core developers who are more invested in RDMA/NVMEoF whom I shall ask?
The uniqueness of the situation here is that I would like to make significant contributions, and I can move fast. I am not saying people shall accommodate me, I am just saying that I want and I need to move fast. Having a private tree that is far "ahead" of development tree is a burden for me because of changes and review fixes. So, I would like to ask again "How can make it better, if I have a lot of code to contribute in a particular area -- NVMEoF?". Is core developer access out of the question?
--
----------------------------------------
Constantine Gavrilov
Storage Architect
Master Inventor
Tel-Aviv Storage Lab IDT Lead
Tel-Aviv IBM Storage Lab
1 Azrieli Center, Tel-Aviv
Phone: +972-3-6897318
Fax: +972-3-6897230
----------------------------------------
From: Pascal Quantin <pascal@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
To: Developer support list for Wireshark <wireshark-dev@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Date: 03/21/2021 02:55 PM
Subject: [EXTERNAL] Re: [Wireshark-dev] Improvments for NVMeOF dissector
Sent by: "Wireshark-dev" <wireshark-dev-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Hi Constantine, 21 mars 2021 13:40:22 Constantine Gavrilov <CONSTG@xxxxxxxxxx>: > Pascal, thank you for your answer. > > What would be a reasonable time to wait? A week, two weeks, a month? Long review times a problem by themselves,
Hi Constantine,
21 mars 2021 13:40:22 Constantine Gavrilov <CONSTG@xxxxxxxxxx>:
> Pascal, thank you for your answer.
>
> What would be a reasonable time to wait? A week, two weeks, a month? Long review times a problem by themselves, since I cannot move ahead. But it is not even a problem of waiting as much, as it is a problem of communication loss. Dropping a line " will review it within 3 weeks" or "cannot handle it, too busy" "or will review later" is far less problematic then ignoring the question "can you review it, please?"
Come on, it has been two days, including the weekend. I hardly see where there is a communication issue here, simply people that do not spend all their time behind their computer screen. To be honest I would have better understood your push if it had been a full week without any feedback, but not after one day (long review time? That's really what you are thinking?). I see some other open source projects where the submitted patches do not get any attention during weeks. We could definitely do better, but I do not think we are the worst.
>
>
> I have nothing personal to gain from this. It is true that I am using wireshark for my work on NVMEoF, but if I cannot interest the community with this work, I can fork the tree locally and continue without submitting the changes. Doing this for community was an act of contibution and a hard work, but I will not impose if there is no cooperation. As I have said, I do not think recognition. If there is an interest and someone will come up to reveiew the changes, than I continue to contibute. If the attitude is "do not bother us", why should I care?
We appreciate your contribution, and if you think this is not the case please give some examples. I'm just reminding you (as Anders did already) that we are volonteersand not paid for the time we spend on the project, and that we also have a professional and personal life that have their own constraints, and priority over the Wireshark project. Having a few days delay is not the end of the world, fortunately.
Best regards,
Pascal.
>
>
> --
> ----------------------------------------
> Constantine Gavrilov
> Storage Architect
> Master Inventor
> Tel-Aviv Storage Lab IDT Lead
> Tel-Aviv IBM Storage Lab
> 1 Azrieli Center, Tel-Aviv
> Phone: +972-3-6897318
> Fax: +972-3-6897230
> ----------------------------------------
>
>
>
> From: Pascal Quantin <pascal@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> To: Developer support list for Wireshark <wireshark-dev@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> Date: 03/21/2021 12:02 PM
> Subject: [EXTERNAL] Re: [Wireshark-dev] Improvments for NVMeOF dissector
> Sent by: "Wireshark-dev" <wireshark-dev-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> ----------------------------------------
>
>
>
> Hi Constantine, If I read the review history correctly, you were asked to perform some changes that you did 2 days ago. This is not abnormal not to get any feedback in such a short period, and that does not mean the receiver lost interest but
> Hi Constantine,
>
> If I read the review history correctly, you were asked to perform some changes that you did 2 days ago. This is not abnormal not to get any feedback in such a short period, and that does not mean the receiver lost interest but simply that he is busy.
> So my suggestion is to be a bit more patient as reviewers usually do their best according to the time they can give to the project. Being too pushy can give the exact opposite of what you would like. Just my two cents.
>
> Best regards,
> Pascal.
>
> 21 mars 2021 10:47:02 Constantine Gavrilov <CONSTG@xxxxxxxxxx>:
>
> Sometime ago, I started to work on NVMEoF dissector. I have already contributed the number of fixes and improvements and they have already been merged.
>
> My goal is to have a full dissection for connection establishment, management and IO flow, and I would like to move on quickly.
>
> The goal is to contribute back to the community. I am not seeking recognition -- I have plenty of that in my place of work. The goal is to help and express my gratitude to the project.
>
> After initial changes merged, I am stuck at getting my current merge request (_#17282[/wireshark/wireshark/-/issues/17282]_)reviewed. I understand that this is a volunteer project and all people are busy. But I do have a problem with broken line of communication. My personal opinion is that if a core developer "picks up" the merge request and has review comments, they shall follow up on the requested changes that a contributor has provided. If they loose focus or interest, they shall inform the contributor, instead of just "disappearing". As a contributor, I can control any form of merge request assignment or have control over who will look at the merge request.
>
> The fact that people are busy goes both ways -- for contributors as well as core developers. I am looking into improving my contribution experience for NVMEoF. Perhaps there is a core developer who is willing to look at the changes and has sufficient interest and available time to work with me on reviewing NVMEoF dissector changes? As it stands now, I feel blocked from contributing (just because the speed of the review and people dropping off). I am busy and will eventually have hard choices to make...
>
> Perhaps I can get approval to join core developers?
>
>
> --
> ----------------------------------------
> Constantine Gavrilov
> Storage Architect
> Master Inventor
> Tel-Aviv Storage Lab IDT Lead
> Tel-Aviv IBM Storage Lab
> 1 Azrieli Center, Tel-Aviv
> ----------------------------------------
> ___________________________________________________________________________
> Sent via: Wireshark-dev mailing list <wireshark-dev@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> Archives: _https://www.wireshark.org/lists/wireshark-dev[https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__www.wireshark.org_lists_wireshark-2Ddev&d=DwQFaQ&c=jf_iaSHvJObTbx-siA1ZOg&r=XzHrT4jzZ2lsSkPL8XE51gcxM30kcdBgWfG2QV6bUpw&m=Pm_WNGTMDJaxPl3pTqYwOTZbE8nLo6Gj17vih_olCHI&s=Ny-xFzcNeX-gmDmEJffp5ViSSqcpcwY20i-ucIZkfsM&e=]_
> Unsubscribe: _https://www.wireshark.org/mailman/options/wireshark-dev[https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__www.wireshark.org_mailman_options_wireshark-2Ddev&d=DwQFaQ&c=jf_iaSHvJObTbx-siA1ZOg&r=XzHrT4jzZ2lsSkPL8XE51gcxM30kcdBgWfG2QV6bUpw&m=Pm_WNGTMDJaxPl3pTqYwOTZbE8nLo6Gj17vih_olCHI&s=ERRL9XIUdCMm1gTsUIesNYxjrpJfQn6aofoIV_QnZSo&e=]_
> mailto:wireshark-dev-request@xxxxxxxxxxxxx?subject=unsubscribe___________________________________________________________________________
> Sent via: Wireshark-dev mailing list <wireshark-dev@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> Archives: https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__www.wireshark.org_lists_wireshark-2Ddev&d=DwIGaQ&c=jf_iaSHvJObTbx-siA1ZOg&r=XzHrT4jzZ2lsSkPL8XE51gcxM30kcdBgWfG2QV6bUpw&m=Pm_WNGTMDJaxPl3pTqYwOTZbE8nLo6Gj17vih_olCHI&s=Ny-xFzcNeX-gmDmEJffp5ViSSqcpcwY20i-ucIZkfsM&e=
> Unsubscribe: https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__www.wireshark.org_mailman_options_wireshark-2Ddev&d=DwIGaQ&c=jf_iaSHvJObTbx-siA1ZOg&r=XzHrT4jzZ2lsSkPL8XE51gcxM30kcdBgWfG2QV6bUpw&m=Pm_WNGTMDJaxPl3pTqYwOTZbE8nLo6Gj17vih_olCHI&s=ERRL9XIUdCMm1gTsUIesNYxjrpJfQn6aofoIV_QnZSo&e=
> mailto:wireshark-dev-request@xxxxxxxxxxxxx?subject=unsubscribe
>
>
> ___________________________________________________________________________
> Sent via: Wireshark-dev mailing list <wireshark-dev@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> Archives: https://www.wireshark.org/lists/wireshark-dev
> Unsubscribe: https://www.wireshark.org/mailman/options/wireshark-dev
> mailto:wireshark-dev-request@xxxxxxxxxxxxx?subject=unsubscribe___________________________________________________________________________
Sent via: Wireshark-dev mailing list <wireshark-dev@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Archives: https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__www.wireshark.org_lists_wireshark-2Ddev&d=DwIGaQ&c=jf_iaSHvJObTbx-siA1ZOg&r=XzHrT4jzZ2lsSkPL8XE51gcxM30kcdBgWfG2QV6bUpw&m=PuhCYBiCtsTJ3lqzceYSkjMcODRvNjfQFAkyH_ldBig&s=tljg4uD-pQVz8JUV5YtJQo5iIULUeaJFGZRcKVP8T5k&e=
Unsubscribe: https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__www.wireshark.org_mailman_options_wireshark-2Ddev&d=DwIGaQ&c=jf_iaSHvJObTbx-siA1ZOg&r=XzHrT4jzZ2lsSkPL8XE51gcxM30kcdBgWfG2QV6bUpw&m=PuhCYBiCtsTJ3lqzceYSkjMcODRvNjfQFAkyH_ldBig&s=k-_1Y5uMOEKxF4SK91iRR15QPh0ktE95-3lC2-LGpy4&e=
mailto:wireshark-dev-request@xxxxxxxxxxxxx?subject=unsubscribe
- Follow-Ups:
- Re: [Wireshark-dev] Improvments for NVMeOF dissector
- From: Pascal Quantin
- Re: [Wireshark-dev] Improvments for NVMeOF dissector
- References:
- [Wireshark-dev] Improvments for NVMeOF dissector
- From: Constantine Gavrilov
- Re: [Wireshark-dev] Improvments for NVMeOF dissector
- From: Pascal Quantin
- Re: [Wireshark-dev] Improvments for NVMeOF dissector
- From: Constantine Gavrilov
- Re: [Wireshark-dev] Improvments for NVMeOF dissector
- From: Pascal Quantin
- [Wireshark-dev] Improvments for NVMeOF dissector
- Prev by Date: Re: [Wireshark-dev] Improvments for NVMeOF dissector
- Next by Date: Re: [Wireshark-dev] Improvments for NVMeOF dissector
- Previous by thread: Re: [Wireshark-dev] Improvments for NVMeOF dissector
- Next by thread: Re: [Wireshark-dev] Improvments for NVMeOF dissector
- Index(es):