Help with reviewing dosfstools patches

Help with reviewing dosfstools patches

[Pali Rohár]

Hello!

Can somebody help with reviewing existing patches / pull requests for
dosfstools project? https://github.com/dosfstools/dosfstools/pulls

Dosfstools contains linux userspace utilities for FAT file filesystems,
including mkfs and fsck. They are de-facto standard tools available in
any linux distribution supporting FAT file systems.

There are more patches for these utilities and due to lack of more
active developers, these patches are just waiting for review.

More end users are asking for releasing a new version of dosfstools
including of those waiting patches. So can somebody help with reviewing
them?

-- 
Pali Rohár
pali.rohar@gmail.com

Re: Help with reviewing dosfstools patches

[Enrico Weigelt, metux IT consult]

On 14.06.19 12:25, Pali Rohár wrote:
> Hello!
> 
> Can somebody help with reviewing existing patches / pull requests for
> dosfstools project? https://github.com/dosfstools/dosfstools/pulls

I'll have a look at it. Could you perhaps prepare a (rebased) patch
queue ?

Does the project already have a maillist ?


--mtx

-- 
Enrico Weigelt, metux IT consult
Free software and Linux embedded engineering
info@metux.net -- +49-151-27565287

Re: Help with reviewing dosfstools patches

[Pali Rohár]

On Friday 14 June 2019 16:20:08 Enrico Weigelt, metux IT consult wrote:
> On 14.06.19 12:25, Pali Rohár wrote:
> > Hello!
> > 
> > Can somebody help with reviewing existing patches / pull requests for
> > dosfstools project? https://github.com/dosfstools/dosfstools/pulls
> 
> I'll have a look at it. Could you perhaps prepare a (rebased) patch
> queue ?
> 
> Does the project already have a maillist ?

No, there is no mailing list. Basically whole development is on github
via github pull requests where are also put review comments and where is
also whole discussion, including bug reports.

-- 
Pali Rohár
pali.rohar@gmail.com

Re: Help with reviewing dosfstools patches

[Christoph Hellwig]

On Fri, Jun 14, 2019 at 04:25:34PM +0200, Pali Rohár wrote:
> > Does the project already have a maillist ?
> 
> No, there is no mailing list. Basically whole development is on github
> via github pull requests where are also put review comments and where is
> also whole discussion, including bug reports.

That could explain why it is lacking qualified reviewers..

Re: Help with reviewing dosfstools patches

[Enrico Weigelt, metux IT consult]

On 14.06.19 16:20, Enrico Weigelt, metux IT consult wrote:

<snip>

Currently working through your branches. Smells like they really deserve
a rebase and signed-off lines.


--mtx

-- 
Enrico Weigelt, metux IT consult
Free software and Linux embedded engineering
info@metux.net -- +49-151-27565287

Re: Help with reviewing dosfstools patches

[Enrico Weigelt, metux IT consult]

On 14.06.19 17:45, Enrico Weigelt, metux IT consult wrote:
> On 14.06.19 16:20, Enrico Weigelt, metux IT consult wrote:
> 
> <snip>
> 
> Currently working through your branches. Smells like they really deserve
> a rebase and signed-off lines.

rebased/applied your patches and got test failures:

XFAIL: check-dot_entries
========================

Test check-dot_entries
First fsck run to check and fix error...
fsck.fat 4.1+git (2017-01-24)
/DIR
  "." is not first entry. Can't fix this yet.
/DIR
  ".." is not second entry. Can't fix this yet.
check-dot_entries.img: 4 files, 3/63931 clusters
*** Error was not detected by fsck.
XFAIL check-dot_entries.fsck (exit status: 100)

XFAIL: check-huge
=================

Test check-huge
First fsck run to check and fix error...
Failed to read sector 167772191.
fsck.fat 4.1+git (2017-01-24)
Second fsck run to check if error was fixed...
Failed to read sector 167772191.
fsck.fat 4.1+git (2017-01-24)
*** Error was not fixed by fsck.
XFAIL check-huge.fsck (exit status: 1)


--mtx

-- 
Enrico Weigelt, metux IT consult
Free software and Linux embedded engineering
info@metux.net -- +49-151-27565287

Re: Help with reviewing dosfstools patches

[Pali Rohár]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1733 bytes --]

On Friday 14 June 2019 07:30:52 Christoph Hellwig wrote:
> On Fri, Jun 14, 2019 at 04:25:34PM +0200, Pali Rohár wrote:
> > > Does the project already have a maillist ?
> > 
> > No, there is no mailing list. Basically whole development is on github
> > via github pull requests where are also put review comments and where is
> > also whole discussion, including bug reports.
> 
> That could explain why it is lacking qualified reviewers..

That is not my decision. Probably current maintainer of dosfstools like
it. But nowadays do not have much more time and gave me commit access.

Main benefit of github pull requests is that every one pull request
patch is automatically compiled and tested on i686, x86_64, x32, arm
and big endian powerpc systems via Travis CI. So author and also
reviewers/people with commit access immediately know if proposed change
could break something.

I like automated testing on more platforms, because lot of people either
do not know or do not have access to different systems just for testing.
And this can show possible problems...

Setting up a new mailing list, configuring some testing server, copying
existing patches from github to list, etc... is just tons of work for
which I basically do not have a time. Therefore I asked for help to
review existing stuff with minimal technical time setup.

I understand that it is not ideal for everybody, but for current
contributors it is probably better. I have already reviewed and merged
more patches, just those which are mine are left open, so more eyes can
look at them.

If you or somebody else have time and want to improve dosfstools
project, I'm not against it...

-- 
Pali Rohár
pali.rohar@gmail.com

[-- Attachment #2: signature.asc --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 195 bytes --]

Re: Help with reviewing dosfstools patches

[Pali Rohár]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 677 bytes --]

On Friday 14 June 2019 17:45:20 Enrico Weigelt, metux IT consult wrote:
> On 14.06.19 16:20, Enrico Weigelt, metux IT consult wrote:
> 
> <snip>
> 
> Currently working through your branches. Smells like they really deserve
> a rebase and signed-off lines.

Every patch/pull request is mean to be based on current upstream
"master" branch.

As some of pull requests were opened long time ago, they are out-of-sync
from upstream "master" branch.

Currently I rebased and force-pushed those changes which had merge
conflict with upstream master branch.

And now on each pull request passed compilation and 'make check'.

-- 
Pali Rohár
pali.rohar@gmail.com

[-- Attachment #2: signature.asc --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 195 bytes --]