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 F0F2A2C for ; Tue, 26 Jul 2016 16:22:39 +0000 (UTC) Received: from bombadil.infradead.org (bombadil.infradead.org [198.137.202.9]) by smtp1.linuxfoundation.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 82B6222E for ; Tue, 26 Jul 2016 16:22:39 +0000 (UTC) Date: Tue, 26 Jul 2016 09:22:38 -0700 From: Darren Hart To: Daniel Vetter Message-ID: <20160726162238.GE3703@f23x64.localdomain> References: <20160722200206.GA3703@f23x64.localdomain> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: Cc: Grant Likely , Dave Airlie , Linus Torvalds , "Nikula, Jani" , "ksummit-discuss@lists.linuxfoundation.org" Subject: Re: [Ksummit-discuss] [CORE TOPIC] (group) maintainership models List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , On Mon, Jul 25, 2016 at 07:57:04AM +0200, Daniel Vetter wrote: > On Fri, Jul 22, 2016 at 10:02 PM, Darren Hart wrote: > > 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). > > Not sure I'm helping, since I think this new i915 model makes the > spread in different policies worse ;-) What do you have in mind here? Just talking about what maintainers are doing, which is always evolving, will help keep us in sync, and adopting improved methods. -- Darren Hart Intel Open Source Technology Center