--- On Fri, 15/7/11, Naohiro Aota <naota@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: > Hin-Tak Leung <hintak_leung@xxxxxxxxxxx> > writes: > > > Naohiro, > > > > It has been a somewhat difficult decision but I think > you know why you failed mid-term evaluation. When the > project started neither of us knew how to go about > implementing hfsplus journaling, then the netgear 2.6.15 > tarball became known, and it became a somewhat trivial > review/forward-porting task. > > ah, I didn't noticed your this email and how time was > passed ... OK > .. though I don't think I didn't worked so much.., but I > should accept > your decision. It was my fault not to report what I've done > so much. > > Thank you for your all suggestions. I'll continue my work > in the feature > (for now I have a lot of exams in a few next weeks) I don't think it is fair to say you did not worked so much - but as I wrote a few times, your role is not so much as getting/verifying the dev work done - after all, most of it were done by gentoo and/or netgear - but of reviewing and accessing them to be in-parts send upstream to Apple or Linus and pursuading Apple or Linus to take them. Therefore every change must be explained/reviewed clearly. Since these are changes that can potentially lead to data loss, if you cannot or would not explain/review every change, even if you have made all the necessary adjustment of merging all the 3rd party diskdev_cmds changes, or port-forward the netgear change from 2.6.15 to run on current mainline kernel head, the work is of no value because somebody will have to redo it to examine every part. I see you have finally commented on your own changes on diskdev_cmds - they are okay and good; but they are your own changes, and it shouldn't have been difficult to write a line or two explaining any of them, and it should not have needed me asking you more than a few times before you do that. I appreciate that you have already done the forward porting of the netgear change from 2.6.15 to mainline 3.0 rcX - that's not an insignificant effort - however, it is in a single patch undocumented, and I cannot be acertained what changes you have made over and on top of netgear's. To acertain its correctness in the current state you have done, I would have to attempt the forward-porting myself, which unfortunately means your work has no value. I know you have made most of the changes work somewhat as they should be on your own computer; but there is little attempt in making the changes acceptable to others; if your diskdev_cmds tree does not try to be the "most-correct/complete" fork/enhancement outside of apple's, then it is just another fork - many people forks others' work for various reasons (gentoo did, and netgear did) and most of that work never get re-integrated upstream and becomes bit-rotted. Perhaps "for now I have a lot of exams in a few next weeks" is where our problem is. This is the _first_ time ever I heard that you are not free for the next few weeks. google-summer-of-code is supposed to be a summer job - while nobody actually checks that you are working 40 hours a week (and I won't and never intended to); even last week I was mentioning that I am worry that all your check-ins seems to be so far on two separate dates, and I wrote that you should work no less than 20-hours on this on the average, but I wrote that I was young once and understand you can take holidays, etc. Back in April, I told you in advance that I'd be travelling most of May/June and may not respond too quickly. I don't mind that you have exams and cannot work on this for some amount of time during the May-August period; but I do mind that you have not mentioned this so far. Why did you fail to mention this so far? In the past, we have students who have family holidays, etc and need to disappear for weeks during the summer, and that was not a problem - but somehow you don't think your exams and non-availability is an important issue to mention? As I wrote a few times, file-system work involves a lot of explaining why you do what you do, and every action (in this case, non-action) needs to be explained. I feel rather sad to mark this project a failure - the project shouldn't have failed: it was AFAIK only a matter of how soon you can review/break up all the userland/kernel changes satisfactorily. But a review should not require another review(s) to justify. The work should not be difficult to achieve within the 3 months' time frame - and I hope you have another go after you finish your exam. Hin-Tak -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-fsdevel" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
