About RTI Advocates
Advocates are the gatekeepers to the illumos core: they have the ultimate say in what code is accepted, and their primary job is to ensure quality and stability for all illumos users.
Advocates are appointed by the illumos Developers' Council, a technical steering committee drawn from well-known developers of Solaris, whose role is to make high-level architecture decisions.
Current membership of the Dev Council:
- Bryan Cantrill, Joyent
- Garrett D’Amore,
- Adam Leventhal, Delphix
- Rich Lowe, unaffiliated
- Gordon Ross, Nexenta
|Name||Affiliation||Areas of Expertise||irc nick on #illumos|
Storage targets and HBAs, misc drivers,
|Dan McDonald||Joyent||TCP/IP, Cryptography, Networking userland,|
GLDv3, some COMSTAR, etc.
|Robert Mustacchi||Joyent||Virtualization, Pieces of SMF, PCI, MDB, |
DTrace, x86 platform, etc.
(other misc. stuff)
|Joshua M. Clulow||Joyent||LeftWing|
Life as an Advocate
Contributors send you patches, build results, test results, check results, review results. If you're happy with all of this, you integrate the change on their behalf.
You should have received a diff in hg export or similar format, including a full set of metadata (Reviewed by: lines, authorship, etc.). If you didn't, feel free to ask whoever submitted the patch to submit it in this format, you shouldn't have to go search the list archives for reviewers.
Using your judgement
The whole reason we have RTI advocates or, if you're not steeped in Sun-ish history, follow a "pull" model, is that it provides us with a step in the process where in theory experienced people can exercise their (in theory) better judgement, and everyone can benefit from less breakage. This is 95% of the work involved.
Things you should be thinking about
- Do you know the areas of the system affected well enough to even have an opinion?
If not, you should probably leave this for someone else who might (note that we don't have perfect coverage, so you can't just punt on everything).
- Is the commit well-formed?
The author line should include both a name and a well formed email address, and should match the actual author. The format here is very important for SCM export. Don't just assume it's fine!
- Is the pbchk output as clean as you want it to be?
In general, there should be no noise from any check, however some areas are not clean for the various style checks, you should check this is actually the case (in general, areas that are innately dirty are very dirty, and stand out).
Is the user's build clean? - They'll be giving you a
mail_msgfile, which will ideally be absolutely free of any noise. In practice there are times when there will be noise for other reasons not related to their integration. You should check!
- Did the user also build with the current shadow compiler? - check the
mail_msgfile for the compilers that were actually used.
- Did the submitter test their changes to your satisfaction?
- Can you think of anything else that should be tested? Ask for it!
- Did the testing actually test the area changed by the patch? Check!
- Read the diff. Check that nothing stands out that reviewers may have missed
- Feel free to run a build yourself, if you're paranoid, but don't feel compelled to.
Be sure to do the following:
- When importing a patch, record the approving advocate with an "Approved by:" line in the commit message after the existing "Reviewed by:" lines.
- When a push to the gate fails, you must never force the push. There will always be a reason for the error which you must fix properly.
- Be sure, when merging or recommitting, that the Author: field reflects the submitter of the change and not you, the Committer.
You can (and should) visually inspect outgoing commits before pushing (to ensure you have done all of the above) with something like:
git show --pretty=fuller origin/master..