openbmc/telemetry: First complaint of unresponsiveness

[Ambrozewicz, Adrian]

On 20.12.2023 23:58, Andrew Jeffery wrote:
> On Wed, 2023-12-20 at 10:56 -0600, Patrick Williams wrote:
>> My gripe is that you should not be holding up the open-source project for
>> your own unpublished, undocumented, non-aligned tests.
> 
> My understanding is now that Adrian is aware of the patches he is doing
> some of his own testing to build confidence in merging them. *That*
> latency should probably be measured from around the time I sent the
> initial email, as I suspect that's when he became aware of the patches.
> So far that's a few days, which isn't unreasonable to me. As a
> contributor I sympathise with measuring from when you pushed the
> patches for review, and that this seems like yet more delay, but
> hopefully we can separate out the events here.
 >
 > I'd be more concerned about a knee-jerk merge due to getting a mildly
 > stern email and having the merge breaking things. The fact that he's
 > testing them to build his confidence seems like reasonable maintainer
 > practice to me.

Thank you for your consideration.

> The fact that it's felt that tests are required in
> addition to the automated testing is a concern, but I wouldn't yet
> class this effort as "holding things up" in a tar-pit sense.

I agree that treating all incoming changes as a package to be tested 
might be an overkill. I'm just cautious about switching to C++23, and 
wanted to confirm on target arch and toolchain. Perhaps for some folks 
here it can be seen as unnecessary, for which I apologize, still beg for 
pardon :)

Regards,
Adrian