Messages in this thread | | | Date | Fri, 28 Oct 2016 11:23:52 +0200 | From | Boris Brezillon <> | Subject | Re: [PATCH] MAINTAINERS: add more people to the MTD maintainer team |
| |
Hi Brian,
On Thu, 27 Oct 2016 13:57:32 -0700 Brian Norris <computersforpeace@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Mon, Oct 24, 2016 at 02:35:26PM +0200, Boris Brezillon wrote: > > Brian has been maintaining the MTD subsystem alone for several years > > now, and maintaining such a subsystem can really be time consuming. > > > > Create a maintainer team formed of the most active MTD contributors > > to help Brian with this task, which will hopefully improve the > > subsystem reactivity. > > > > Signed-off-by: Boris Brezillon <boris.brezillon@free-electrons.com> > > Thanks to all the volunteers! Applied to linux-mtd.git. Will send to > Linus once we can collect other outstanding fixes. > > > --- > > Hi all, > > > > I'm just trying to summarize what I understood the process would be, > > don't hesitate to correct me if I'm wrong. > > > > For each release we will assign a specific MTD maintainer which will be > > responsible for taking MTD core patches and pulling spi-nor and nand PRs > > into the MTD tree and eventually send one or several PRs to Linus. > > I had imagined that the "release owner" role wouldn't necessarily imply > exclusive commit rights, but that they'd just the primary one > responsible. I don't see a problem with other maintainer(s) applying > patches as long as they've gotten the proper review. Or would that be > too confusing?
Nope, I'm fine with both solutions.
> > But that's something not discussed here so far: review requirements. I > expect we need a minimum of 1 reviewer (where reviewer may be the one > applying it) that isn't the author. And for bigger things (i.e., not > trivial and not just a leaf driver) maybe 2. Hopefully in the form of > explicit Reviewed-by or Acked-by.
Agreed.
> And that means that for NAND or > SPI-NOR PRs, that may require preempting the "release owner" (e.g., if > Boris is supposed to be the "owner" for a release, he'll have to find > someone else to review his NAND PR -- I'm still happy to do so for now, > but others are welcome).
Cool.
> > And for PRs to Linus: if y'all don't mind, I'd still like to have a > last look at things from the brand new maintainers, at least for now. > (Boris and Richard would probably also be good candidates for the last > review / PR, as they've proven to maintain things well already.) I'm > sure that can be relaxed after a release or so (say, after 4.10?).
I'm perfectly fine with that.
> > Thoughts? > > Also, everyone should make their attempts to get their PGP keys into the > web-of-trust. And we need David to get people infradead.org permissions. > > One other point of order: if it isn't clear, I've been using > l2-mtd.git/master as the -next "branch" and linux-mtd.git/master as the > -current-release "branch." We should work extra hard to avoid rebasing > in either of those trees now. In fact, I'll go disable non-ff pushes > now... > > I also currently have a server-side post-receive git hook installed in > l2-mtd.git that tries to update patchwork. It's not 100% accurate > because it matches contents (which might be the same across multiple > revisions of a series). I should probably remove or modify that before > others start pushing there.
I use git notes to do that: each time I apply a patch using pwclient, it adds a note containing the patchwork id, then, I have a pre-push hook that scan all the commits that are being pushed on my nand/next branch and mark the new ones as Accepted in patchwork.
I can provide those scripts if you want, but this means it has to be done on the client side, because notes are discarded when you push things to a remote.
> > > For fixes that are submitted after -rc1, I usually ask Brian to apply > > them directly into the MTD tree (I don't think there's a real need to > > prepare spi-nor and nand PRs for fixes), so we can proceed the same > > way: ask the maintainer assigned to this release to also take care of > > applying fixes and sending PRs to Linus before each -rc. > > I'm flexible on this. If the "release owner" is attentive enough, > applying them to the MTD tree works just fine. But if a PR helps (as > Boris is planning to do right now for 4.9-rc) I don't see a problem with > that either.
Well, it all depends on the number of fixes we have. But if we all have permissions to push to the mtd tree, then we can just create a fixes branch where the sub-subsystem maintainers can easily push their fixes and the release owner will then send a PR to Linus before the next -rc.
> > > If you have other ideas, or would like to proceed differently, don't > > hesitate propose them. > > Good luck, and happy MTD hacking :)
Thanks.
| |