Re: Improvments for NVMeOF dissector

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

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 () wireshark org>
To:     Developer support list for Wireshark <wireshark-dev () wireshark org>
Date:   03/21/2021 02:55 PM
Subject:        [EXTERNAL] Re: [Wireshark-dev] Improvments for NVMeOF 
dissector
Sent by:        "Wireshark-dev" <wireshark-dev-bounces () wireshark org>



Hi Constantine, 21 mars 2021 13:40:22 Constantine Gavrilov 
<CONSTG () il ibm com>: > 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 () il ibm com>: 

> 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 () wireshark org> 
> To:        Developer support list for Wireshark 
<wireshark-dev () wireshark org> 
> Date:        03/21/2021 12:02 PM 
> Subject:        [EXTERNAL] Re: [Wireshark-dev] Improvments for NVMeOF 
dissector 
> Sent by:        "Wireshark-dev" <wireshark-dev-bounces () wireshark org> 
> ---------------------------------------- 
>
>
>
> 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 () il ibm com>: 
>
> 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 () wireshark org> 
> 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 () wireshark 
org?subject=unsubscribe___________________________________________________________________________ 

> 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=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 () 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 
___________________________________________________________________________
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=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 () 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