Re: [Ksummit-discuss] [CORE TOPIC] (group) maintainership models

[Darren Hart <dvhart@infradead.org>]

On Wed, Jul 20, 2016 at 02:11:58PM +0200, Daniel Vetter wrote:
> In my very first KS I found the maintainership model presentations
> (x86-tip & armsoc) rather interesting. And last year we've had an
> ad-hoc discussion about group maintainership again. I think drm&i915
> would be an interesting case since over the past year I've done some
> changes which are at the edge of what's common in the kernel, and it
> seems to work (at least for us) fairly well. I discussed this a bit
> with a few folks at ELC San Diego too.
> 
> Short summary: i915 has now a two-level maintenance model with 2
> maintainers (who take the blame) and 15 people who can push patches.
> In a way a rather big group, but not so big that people don't all know
> each another any more personally. We have some detailed docs about the
> patch flow and expectations:
> 
> https://01.org/linuxgraphics/gfx-docs/maintainer-tools/drm-intel.html
> 
> and about the dim tool used to support this all
> 
> https://01.org/linuxgraphics/gfx-docs/maintainer-tools/dim.html
> 
> But I think the more interesting bits are why I decided to try this
> out, what I hoped would happen, what I feared might happen. And with 1
> year of experience, what actually happens and what I think is needed
> to make this work and an actual benefit over more traditional
> maintainer models. And of course I'd like to compare notes with other
> group maintainers.

I'd be interested in the discussion. I think having it would also serve to
minimize the differences between policies across subsystems (which is a common
topic people have raised with me).

-- 
Darren Hart
Intel Open Source Technology Center