From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from smtp1.linuxfoundation.org (smtp1.linux-foundation.org [172.17.192.35]) by mail.linuxfoundation.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id BB5B7B13 for ; Fri, 10 Jul 2015 13:07:42 +0000 (UTC) Received: from outbound3.ore.mailhop.org (erouter8.ore.mailhop.org [54.187.218.212]) by smtp1.linuxfoundation.org (Postfix) with SMTP id BE0BD195 for ; Fri, 10 Jul 2015 13:07:41 +0000 (UTC) Date: Fri, 10 Jul 2015 13:07:39 +0000 From: Jason Cooper To: "John W. Linville" Message-ID: <20150710130739.GT23515@io.lakedaemon.net> References: <201507080121.41463.PeterHuewe@gmx.de> <20150708140727.GH23515@io.lakedaemon.net> <20150708221836.GN23515@io.lakedaemon.net> <20150709150938.GF4265@tuxdriver.com> <20150709174535.GB32448@roeck-us.net> <20150709180845.GG4265@tuxdriver.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20150709180845.GG4265@tuxdriver.com> Cc: ksummit-discuss@lists.linuxfoundation.org Subject: Re: [Ksummit-discuss] [CORE TOPIC] Recruitment (Reviewers, Testers, Maintainers, Hobbyists) List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , On Thu, Jul 09, 2015 at 02:08:46PM -0400, John W. Linville wrote: > I guess the suggestion becomes a deeper maintainer hierarchy where > maintainers only pull from sub-maintainers, and sub-maintainers handle > individual patches and smaller pull requests from contributors. > This is essentially the model used for wireless. That introduces > the problem of increased patch merge latency, for which I have no > good suggestions... We haven't found that to be a problem in mvebu/arm-soc. It does increase the lead time a bit. We stop accepting patches for the coming merge window around -rc5/6 or so. Judicious use of linux-next gives sub-trees good coverage before landing in arm-soc. I wouldn't advise adding another layer to that tree though. Rather, as I said in my other email, co-maintaining with lead rotation works well. thx, Jason.