["Constantine Gavrilov" <CONSTG@xxxxxxxxxx>]

I really meant  " As a contributor,
 I canNOT control any form of merge request assignment or have control
over who will look at the merge request."
The original post misses NOT.




From:      
 "Constantine Gavrilov"
<CONSTG@xxxxxxxxxx>
To:      
 wireshark-dev@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
Date:      
 03/21/2021 11:47 AM
Subject:    
   [EXTERNAL] [Wireshark-dev]
Improvments for NVMeOF dissector
Sent by:    
   "Wireshark-dev"
<wireshark-dev-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>

---

Sometime ago, I started to work on NVMEoF
dissector. I have already contributed the number of fixes and improvements
and they have already been merged. My goal is to have a full dissection
for connection establishment, management and IO flow, 
Sometime ago, I started to work on NVMEoF dissector. I have already contributed
the number of fixes and improvements and they have already been merged.

My goal is to have a full dissection for connection establishment, management
and IO flow, and I would like to move on quickly.

The goal is to contribute back to the community. I am not seeking recognition
-- I have plenty of that in my place of work. The goal is to help and express
my gratitude to the project.

After initial changes merged, I am stuck at getting my current merge request
(#17282)reviewed.
I understand that this is a volunteer project and all people are busy.
But I do have a problem with broken line of communication. My personal
opinion is that if a core developer "picks up" the merge request
and has review comments, they shall follow up on the requested changes
that a contributor has provided. If they loose focus or interest, they
shall inform the contributor, instead of just "disappearing".
 As a contributor,  I can control any form of merge request assignment
or have control over who will look at the merge request.

The fact that people are busy goes both ways -- for contributors as well
as core developers. I am looking into improving my contribution experience
for NVMEoF. Perhaps there is a core developer who is willing to look at
the changes and has sufficient interest and available time to work with
me on reviewing NVMEoF dissector changes? As it stands now, I feel blocked
from contributing (just because the speed of the review and people dropping
off). I am busy and will eventually have hard choices to make...

Perhaps I can get approval to join core developers?


--
----------------------------------------
Constantine Gavrilov
Storage Architect
Master Inventor
Tel-Aviv Storage Lab IDT Lead
Tel-Aviv IBM Storage Lab
1 Azrieli Center, Tel-Aviv
----------------------------------------___________________________________________________________________________
Sent via:    Wireshark-dev mailing list <wireshark-dev@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Archives:    https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__www.wireshark.org_lists_wireshark-2Ddev&d=DwIGaQ&c=jf_iaSHvJObTbx-siA1ZOg&r=XzHrT4jzZ2lsSkPL8XE51gcxM30kcdBgWfG2QV6bUpw&m=Az0bEwNDR2n64vTeeOh-jtarNi96hAQ1lZJnIutajNA&s=Eu1Wb_fkXonhMFYXvFdl9a09nyegtbLf0U7lMyZ2aVI&e=
Unsubscribe: https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__www.wireshark.org_mailman_options_wireshark-2Ddev&d=DwIGaQ&c=jf_iaSHvJObTbx-siA1ZOg&r=XzHrT4jzZ2lsSkPL8XE51gcxM30kcdBgWfG2QV6bUpw&m=Az0bEwNDR2n64vTeeOh-jtarNi96hAQ1lZJnIutajNA&s=IxZo0kpwTNM63DLptSG23Ni3Mykbeg8-jkdqyNJ2e0E&e=
             mailto:wireshark-dev-request@xxxxxxxxxxxxx?subject=unsubscribe