Re: Long time outdated jemalloc

On Sun, Jul 21, 2024 at 2:03 PM cglogic <cglogic@protonmail.com> wrote:

>
> On Sunday, July 21st, 2024 at 6:54 AM, Warner Losh <imp@bsdimp.com> wrote:
>
>
>
> On Sat, Jul 20, 2024 at 1:59 AM cglogic <cglogic@protonmail.com> wrote:
>
>> Hello FreeBSD community,
>>
>> After Jason Evans stepped aside from maintaining jemalloc in FreeBSD,
>> it's not updating in time anymore.
>> Version 5.3.0 was released May 6, 2022 and FreeBSD still not imported it
>> into the tree.
>>
>> There is a pending review https://reviews.freebsd.org/D41421 from Aug
>> 11, 2023.
>> I'm successfully running FreeBSD/amd64 system with D41421 applied for 8
>> months, as well as many other people.
>>
>> Can it be reviewed and committed to CURRENT?
>> Or, if there is no committers willing to do it, can commit bit be given
>> to submitter or another person willing to do this?
>>
>> It's very disappointing when users spend their time to fill such gaps and
>> their efforts just ignored by the developers.
>> Every year FreeBSD Community Survey asking about user experience in
>> contributing to FreeBSD.
>> Here you can see an example of such contributing.
>>
>>
> First, thank you for being persistent and continuing to bring it up. It's
> important to do that to make sure this (and your many other) contribution
> doesn't fall on the floor.
>
> And to be fair, we're only 3 months since the last update. Still, quite a
> bit longer than you should have to wait, but not nearly the year the
> original date suggests.
>
> And this is a perfect storm of "how the project is bad at accepting
> contributions":
> (1) The original submission was close to the 14 branch creation time. This
> meant that we weren't well prepared to look at it since it is such an
> invasive change (at least on its surface). It also slowed the initial
> response...
> (2) There was a number of back and forth requests for changes, which took
> time to sort out...
> (3) The size of this is huge, well beyond the capacity of Phabricator to
> review accurately...
> (4) It's a vendor import. That means we can't just drop the Phabricator
> review into the tree...
> (5) It's phabricator: this is a great tool for developers, but we have a
> terrible track record of using it for intake from new contributors. We
> don't have any oversight at all over this tool, at there's at best tepid
> and luke warm attempts to look for drop balls.
>
> All of these things are a terrible experience. I can only apologize. These
> days, we might steer this towards github, but the 'vendor import' means you
> really need someone on the inside, or you need to be on the inside to make
> that work.
>
> So, how to move forward? Well, I'd like to propose the following:
> (1) submit all the other Phabricator reviews you have open (they are
> mostly good, or close to good) to github. Github is being actively managed
> and will make it faster to get things it. It's a much better tool for new
> contributors (and even frequent contributors of smallish things).
> (2) I should do an vendor import of 5.3.0 from github, and do the merge to
> a branch and push that to github. You can then layer on your changes and
> those can be reviewed more closely as a pull request against the branch I
> push. I suspect that most of the issues are sorted out already
> (3) I'll land it via that route...
>
> And, if the sum of the other pull requests and this are good (and I
> suspect they will be), then we can talk about commit bits and such.
>
> It's experiences like this which is why I'm trying to stand up github pull
> requests as a reliable way to get things and and the best place to send
> people...
>
> Thanks again for persisting, and also for expressing this criticism that
> we (hopefully) can use to make it better.
>
> Warner
>
>
> Hello.
>
> I'm not the author of D41421. Just applied the patch to test it 8 months
> ago. And recently discovered that it's still not committed.
> I can't copy your message to Phabricator because don't have an account. Please,
> if you have time, help the author in D41421.
>

Ah yes. I've been in touch with the author for other things, and somehow
thought it was you....  I'll reach out to him via other means...

Warner