Re: Improvments for NVMeOF dissector

["Constantine Gavrilov" <CONSTG () il ibm com>]

I really meant  " As a contributor,  I canNOT control any form of merge 
request assignment or have control over who will look at the merge 
request."
The original post misses NOT.




From:   "Constantine Gavrilov" <CONSTG () il ibm com>
To:     wireshark-dev () wireshark org
Date:   03/21/2021 11:47 AM
Subject:        [EXTERNAL] [Wireshark-dev] Improvments for NVMeOF 
dissector
Sent by:        "Wireshark-dev" <wireshark-dev-bounces () wireshark org>



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, 
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)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 () wireshark org>
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=Az0bEwNDR2n64vTeeOh-jtarNi96hAQ1lZJnIutajNA&s=Eu1Wb_fkXonhMFYXvFdl9a09nyegtbLf0U7lMyZ2aVI&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=Az0bEwNDR2n64vTeeOh-jtarNi96hAQ1lZJnIutajNA&s=IxZo0kpwTNM63DLptSG23Ni3Mykbeg8-jkdqyNJ2e0E&e=
 

             
mailto:wireshark-dev-request () wireshark org?subject=unsubscribe



___________________________________________________________________________
Sent via:    Wireshark-dev mailing list <wireshark-dev () wireshark org>
Archives:    https://www.wireshark.org/lists/wireshark-dev
Unsubscribe: https://www.wireshark.org/mailman/options/wireshark-dev
             mailto:wireshark-dev-request () wireshark org?subject=unsubscribe