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 DBECC413 for ; Thu, 28 Jul 2016 22:14:14 +0000 (UTC) Received: from mail-yw0-f176.google.com (mail-yw0-f176.google.com [209.85.161.176]) by smtp1.linuxfoundation.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 2B0021A2 for ; Thu, 28 Jul 2016 22:14:14 +0000 (UTC) Received: by mail-yw0-f176.google.com with SMTP id z8so99613141ywa.1 for ; Thu, 28 Jul 2016 15:14:14 -0700 (PDT) MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: <20160726162238.GE3703@f23x64.localdomain> References: <20160722200206.GA3703@f23x64.localdomain> <20160726162238.GE3703@f23x64.localdomain> From: Bjorn Helgaas Date: Thu, 28 Jul 2016 17:13:53 -0500 Message-ID: To: Darren Hart Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Cc: "ksummit-discuss@lists.linuxfoundation.org" , Dave Airlie , "Nikula, Jani" , Grant Likely , Linus Torvalds Subject: Re: [Ksummit-discuss] [CORE TOPIC] (group) maintainership models List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , On Tue, Jul 26, 2016 at 11:22 AM, Darren Hart wrote: > 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. I'm interested in this discussion, since I still work with stone knives and bearskins.