Re: Improvments for NVMeOF dissector

[Pascal Quantin <pascal () 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, 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://www.wireshark.org/lists/wireshark-dev
Unsubscribe: https://www.wireshark.org/mailman/options/wireshark-dev
             mailto:wireshark-dev-request () wireshark org?subject=unsubscribe