This is merely a historical archive of years 2008-2021, before the migration to mailman3.
A maintained and still updated list archive can be found at https://lists.osmocom.org/hyperkitty/list/OpenBSC@lists.osmocom.org/.
Harald Welte laforge at gnumonks.orgHi Keith,
On Fri, Feb 24, 2017 at 05:12:02PM +0100, Keith wrote:
> Was it unfortunately never merged back to master because
> Simply no one ever made the effort to do so.
correct. I really love all the work jolly did, and I'm thankful for
that. However, in order to really work productively in a collaborative
FOSS project, it is part of the contributors task to submit the code in
chunks digestible, go through the review process, address the review
that might occur.
Yes, that's annoying and much less exciting than writing the code in the
first place. But it's necessary, as it ensures the code has been
reviewed by other experts in the codebase, is understood by more than
one person (in case of later issues), and also ensures a common
architecture of the overall code. It's what set's a one-man-show apart
from a collaborative effort.
So the code that is present in some of the many branches that developers
created might work perfectly fine and might even be used in production
by some users. But the code in there has never been submitted for review
or merge. And of course it bit-rots over time, which would have been
avoidable had it gone through review + merge at the time it was
completed.
> There were problems with the code, disagreement on the implementation or
> incompatibilities with other developments etc..
That may or may not be the case. As it was never presented for
review/merge, we simply don't know. I think what needs to be done is it
has to be re-based, understood, tested (both in terms of manual testing
and in terms of adding unit tests where missing), split up in digestible
patch sets and submitted for review in gerrit.
Regards,
Harald
--
- Harald Welte <laforge at gnumonks.org> http://laforge.gnumonks.org/
============================================================================
"Privacy in residential applications is a desirable marketing option."
(ETSI EN 300 175-7 Ch. A6)