To: Andrew Chow <lists@achow101.com>, Bitcoin Protocol Discussion
 <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>
References: <uuq_VbxJp50_-m4ufKpEhJOknhZ0pvK8ioDabCkxtDjBYauO3gLKrj2O2tjS6YIFOnJLyaZg6-LENzom1DyQQ3TyMLIIaGz5IRrzrKB8gRs=@protonmail.com>
 <feef7f88-b46d-7355-1716-122afc6359ee@achow101.com>
From: Aymeric Vitte <aymeric@peersm.com>
Message-ID: <cfa83206-4ea7-5949-9db4-99fc495641a4@peersm.com>
Date: Thu, 20 Apr 2023 12:54:53 +0200
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; WOW64; rv:45.0) Gecko/20100101
 Thunderbird/45.4.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <feef7f88-b46d-7355-1716-122afc6359ee@achow101.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Subject: Re: [bitcoin-dev] Bitcoin Core maintainers and communication on
 merge decisions
Precedence: list

Personnally I will never criticize the maintainers, but my comment was
about the global process, I thought that for something important like
bitcoin there were many devs/maintainers, and as you point out, a PR
must be done by certified people

I don't get very well why every company involved in bitcoin do not put
at least one person in this process (a bit like W3C specs), with
different time zone so every time you wake up you don't have to look
at/handle hundreds of requests/comments

And we can read in the press that bitcoin maintenance is supposed to
cost 200M per year, probably false then, but this is worrying to see
that devs/maintainers are stepping down one after the other


Le 19/04/2023 =C3=A0 23:33, Andrew Chow via bitcoin-dev a =C3=A9crit :
> Responses in-line.
> Note that the opinions expressed in this email are my own and are not
> representative of what other maintainers think or believe.
>
> On 04/18/2023 08:40 AM, Michael Folkson via bitcoin-dev wrote:
>  >
>  > Communication has been a challenge on Bitcoin Core for what I can
> tell the entire history of the project. Maintainers merge a pull reques=
t
> and provide no commentary on why they=E2=80=99ve merged it.
>
> What commentary does there need to be?
> It's self evident that the maintainer believes the code is ready to be
> merged, and has observed enough ACKs from contributors that they are
> comfortable to do so.
> You're welcome to ask for clarification, but frankly, I don't think
> having any commentary on merges is going to be helpful or more elaborat=
e
> in any way.
> Requiring maintainers to have to write explanations for every single
> merge is simply going to increase the burden on them and increase the
> rate of burnout and resignations.
> We've had too many maintainers step down already.
> It'll end up being a bunch of boilerplate comments that don't say
> anything meaningful.
>
> There are certainly situations where PRs are merged very quickly or wit=
h
> otherwise little apparent review.
> But, as I said, if you ask a maintainer why it was merged, the answer
> will be "I thought it was ready and had enough review".
> There may be other reasons that made the maintainer think it was ready
> sooner, such as the PR fixes a critical bug or security vulnerability,
> but these reasons aren't going to be stated publicly.
>
>  > Maintainers leave a pull request with many ACKs and few (if any)
> NACKs for months and provide no commentary on why they haven't merged i=
t.
>
> There are currently 320 open PRs and 366 open issues.
> I wake up every morning to 150+ email notifications containing
> everything that went on overnight, and throughout the day, I typically
> get hundreds more.
> It's impossible to keep up with everything that goes on throughout the =
repo.
> ACKs come in sporadically, PRs are updated, reviews are posted, etc.
> Often times PRs are not merged simply because the maintainers were not
> aware that a PR was ready to be merged.
> Things can simply fall through the cracks.
>
> Of course there are other reasons why something might not be merged, an=
d
> these generally fall into the camp of "I don't think it has had enough
> review".
> It's the maintainer's judgement call to make as to whether something ha=
s
> been sufficiently reviewed, and part of the judgement call is to
> consider the quality and competence of the reviewers.
> If a PR had 100 ACKs but all from random people who have never
> contributed to the project in any capacity, then it's not going to be
> merged because those reviewers would be considered low quality.
> It's not just about the numbers, but also about whether the reviewers
> are people the maintainers think are familiar enough with an area and
> have had a history of thoroughly reviewing PRs.
> For example, if a reviewer who primarily works on the mempool reviewed =
a
> PR in the wallet, I would consider their review and ACK with less weigh=
t
> because they are unlikely to be familiar with the intricacies of the wa=
llet.
> Obviously that changes over time as they make more reviews.
> For another example, if I see an ACK from a reviewer who posts reviews
> that primarily contain nits on code style and other trivialities, I
> would consider that ACK with less weight.
>
> Furthermore, the maintainers are not necessarily the ones who block a m=
erge.
> Part of evaluating if something is ready to be merged is to read the
> comments on a PR.
> Other frequent contributors may have commented or asked questions that
> haven't been resolved yet.
> PRs will often not be merged (even if they have ACKs) until a maintaine=
r
> deems that those comments and questions have been sufficiently resolved=
,
> typically with the commenter stating in some way that their concerns
> were addressed.
> In these situations, no commentary from maintainers is given nor
> necessary as it should be self evident (by reading the comments) that
> something is controversial.
> These kinds of comments are not explicit NACKs (so someone who is only
> counting (N)ACKs won't see them), but are blocking nonetheless.
>
> Lastly, personally I like to review every PR before I merge it.
> This often means that a PR that might otherwise be ready to be merged
> wouldn't be merged by myself as I may not be familiar with that part of=

> the codebase.
> It may also mean that I would require more or specific additional peopl=
e
> to review a PR before I merge it as I would weight my own review less
> heavily.
> With several long time maintainers stepping away, this may be a factor
> in PRs taking longer to get merged as the remaining maintainers may be
> less familiar with the parts of the codebase that were previously
> maintained by someone else.
>
>  > but a casual observer would have only seen Concept ACKs and ACKs wit=
h
> 3 stray NACKs. Many of these casual observers inflated the numbers on
> the utxos.org site [4] signalling support for a soft fork activation
> attempt.
>
> Anyone who thinks that maintainers only look at the numbers of (N)ACKs
> is delusional.
> As I explained above, there is a whole lot more nuance to determining
> even just the status of the opinions on a PR, nevermind the code itself=
=2E
>
> In this specific example of a soft fork, there is also consideration of=

> the opinions outside of the repo itself, such as on this mailing list
> and elsewhere that people discuss soft forks.
>
> On 04/19/2023 11:17 AM, Aymeric Vitte via bitcoin-dev wrote:
>  > While some simple changes can allow bitcoin to surpass ethereum, as
> usual, like "Allow several OP_RETURN in one tx and no limited size"
> https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/27043
>  >
>  > How long it will take remains mysterious
>
> No one (maintainers or contributors) is obligated to implement anything=
=2E
> A feature request not being implemented is because the people who do
> open PRs are either not interested in implementing the feature, or are
> working on other things that they believe to be higher priority.
> If there is a feature that you want, then you will often need to either=

> to it yourself, or pay someone to do it for you.
>
> Additionally, a feature may seem like a good idea to you, but there are=

> often interactions with other things that may end up resulting in it
> being rejected or need significant revision, especially for something
> which affects transaction relay.
>
>
>
> Andrew Chow
>
> _______________________________________________
> bitcoin-dev mailing list
> bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org
> https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-dev

--=20
Sophia-Antipolis, France
CV: https://www.peersm.com/CVAV.pdf
LinkedIn: https://fr.linkedin.com/in/aymeric-vitte-05855b26
GitHub : https://www.github.com/Ayms
A Universal Coin Swap system based on Bitcoin: https://gist.github.com/Ay=
ms/029125db2583e1cf9c3209769eb2cdd7
A bitcoin NFT system: https://gist.github.com/Ayms/01dbfebf219965054b4a3b=
eed1bfeba7
Move your coins by yourself (browser version): https://peersm.com/wallet
Bitcoin transactions made simple: https://github.com/Ayms/bitcoin-transac=
tions

torrent-live: https://github.com/Ayms/torrent-live
node-Tor : https://www.github.com/Ayms/node-Tor
Anti-spies and private torrents, dynamic blocklist: http://torrent-live.p=
eersm.com
Peersm : http://www.peersm.com