Purpose of openwrt-devel?

[Elliott Mitchell]

On Sat, Mar 16, 2024 at 02:19:27PM +0800, Chuanhong Guo wrote:
> 
> On Sat, Mar 16, 2024 at 11:41 AM Elliott Mitchell <ehem+openwrt at m5p.com> wrote:
> > > > Since `git fast-import` is a direct interface to Git's back-end, the
> > > > working tree doesn't need to be modified to operate.  This also means
> > > > mine is *much* faster and can create precisely tailored commits.
> >
> > > Ah, but! ... here I go drudging about maintainabiility again. Others in
> > > the future will also look at it and go like 'hmm, what is this for, and
> > > why the complexity' ...
> >
> > Anyone needing to figure out how the scripts work will need a fair bit
> > of familiarity with Git.  Being able to get good results really does need
> > some deep familiarity with Git's structures, at which point
> > `git fast-import` isn't a big step further.
> 
> And more comments on the perl thing:
> A maintainer needs to be familiar with perl to review or take your
> patches. I could probably vaguely understand what a perl script
> is doing by quickly learning the syntax, but I can't decide
> whether the script is good or not.
> Nobody is explicitly NACKing your patch or saying it's worse
> than the bash version just because it's written in perl. Maintainers
> who don't understand perl simply don't have the knowledge to
> judge the script, so the patch is left for others. If such a maintainer
> doesn't show up, your patch won't be taken. It doesn't matter if
> your script is superior or not.

I must complain about being held to a very different standard than
Olliver Schinagl was.

Take a look at commit 3561015efd, and:
https://github.com/openwrt/openwrt/pull/14713

I see no evidence of a full review, but it was brought into OpenWRT's
repository.  Several people took cursory looks and commented on the
messages, but that isn't a full review.

In particular my comment about the two loops on lines 111-131,
<nudge, nudge, hint, hint>.  A proper review would have required changing
those, since there is an obvious rather superior approach.

The issue of potentially writing the directory at the same time as
reading the directory is harder to spot.  Problem is that means the
script has at least one fundamental problem.

I might suggest a bit of testing of mine, then bringing it in...

Though despite bringing up the issue time and again, a key question still
has no response.  I'm not egotistical enough to claim that as implicit
approval.


-- 
(\___(\___(\______          --=> 8-) EHM <=--          ______/)___/)___/)
 \BS (    |         ehem+sigmsg at m5p.com  PGP 87145445         |    )   /
  \_CS\   |  _____  -O #include <stddisclaimer.h> O-   _____  |   /  _/
8A19\___\_|_/58D2 7E3D DDF4 7BA6 <-PGP-> 41D1 B375 37D0 8714\_|_/___/5445