From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from smtp.kernel.org (aws-us-west-2-korg-mail-1.web.codeaurora.org [10.30.226.201]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by smtp.subspace.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 6CCD425BEF2 for ; Fri, 22 Aug 2025 12:08:26 +0000 (UTC) Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; arc=none smtp.client-ip=10.30.226.201 ARC-Seal:i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1755864506; cv=none; b=JI0r792h7jBidRb2GMxdHmwOs+PSJ3H7DqaZv15RuoWH4EqNhmfPu65tA6F9DjEm2CB4Un/LWljXhgU1IS/RoGrl586crpyEqYru0haUZFqRKwHWV9L6NyeEKq5rpKHiQ9sxbFndmdDYeFPbXb+k31kV0/vOz/FTeYK7xR9T2cQ= ARC-Message-Signature:i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1755864506; c=relaxed/simple; bh=icvOVLayDoSIGz97Y+5vuiiZEPJXTkrBBBS+axzZtV8=; h=MIME-Version:References:In-Reply-To:From:Date:Message-ID:Subject: To:Cc:Content-Type; b=BeSzqfwUagYzwNaIGYT9epmFuD2m5ccjND10yWtK2iYY8Yx31KB3OjgyVvySEoIHTQ6k7XmO3H4XXHnFvsaxwX55JM3bvmVx1CtR0GwXsttSvREoybeORtMreEP0erPCRnPmytkRS9Js/xLnpAuLUsPPBo0l2o0BPw+wjC+z7PI= ARC-Authentication-Results:i=1; smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=kernel.org header.i=@kernel.org header.b=N3A1X3YU; arc=none smtp.client-ip=10.30.226.201 Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=kernel.org header.i=@kernel.org header.b="N3A1X3YU" Received: by smtp.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 03886C116B1 for ; Fri, 22 Aug 2025 12:08:25 +0000 (UTC) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=kernel.org; s=k20201202; t=1755864506; bh=icvOVLayDoSIGz97Y+5vuiiZEPJXTkrBBBS+axzZtV8=; h=References:In-Reply-To:From:Date:Subject:To:Cc:From; b=N3A1X3YUvtLFuai+gK84RVzN2aHLtRYyGvQyRYANnfXHhd9w4GdICP5xylCh733Sq qoQ200CDAxiNp+fpypjfSRWnscwc6kbLX7U9Zpfpfv0G8gvUx9ufmKKOEpY42D5JvG HKkhtRDo6rHhikqblXqtXpvaxRyQRMHNbm0qFzxG0bZ9nNsUUAGVRCrHYUkl88aCY2 BpgsS58RsBWiqaWfcon06jPtXtsfaVaTKi1WgLWf2qpueycsnOHFEtO3W9YfFbbn81 uQjDyj1IWG5nU1e9Tkp5NZxy4tNAGH1DZF2nT4j20HDj0NeNLUkgoC9LCRH6c32lVq cANBnOkUboqUw== Received: by mail-oa1-f53.google.com with SMTP id 586e51a60fabf-3111c59720dso1083230fac.1 for ; Fri, 22 Aug 2025 05:08:25 -0700 (PDT) X-Forwarded-Encrypted: i=1; AJvYcCXzgQeu281TwezhQGckWl7yWagg3sdCUZMLDqYZizBqoI9EyJ/m8Vf5XfPpFmeMdF7ckMS92fy3@lists.linux.dev X-Gm-Message-State: AOJu0Yy5UtgNxeilLlMdORx2/0BD4FRm7ZAxkE3/gtx5fRKINOh8K8sZ tiYK7nABBLQZcXqRuLPdoixCtfjz3kgtgj8is9XMJxvmbH4PEA/u+t+aXyxlXJcF07zDAAXuXZO Nj0IMXytmQfvSyji+7xZsaErtyHKl2HI= X-Google-Smtp-Source: AGHT+IF8R3nC3OOhRXNw3eyWrvGSTDxyTbtg5vt6TESUNt6+XPxfKOBg2A0MXmTNrYGB5tYJ/7Cuuel67Nv0OOga/Oo= X-Received: by 2002:a05:6871:60b:b0:2d6:af0:8d8e with SMTP id 586e51a60fabf-314dcac1ff4mr1326080fac.2.1755864505307; Fri, 22 Aug 2025 05:08:25 -0700 (PDT) Precedence: bulk X-Mailing-List: ksummit@lists.linux.dev List-Id: List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: MIME-Version: 1.0 References: <20250821203407.GA1284215@mit.edu> <940ac5ad8a6b1daa239d748e8f77479a140b050d.camel@HansenPartnership.com> <2025082202-lankiness-talisman-3803@gregkh> In-Reply-To: <2025082202-lankiness-talisman-3803@gregkh> From: "Rafael J. Wysocki" Date: Fri, 22 Aug 2025 14:08:12 +0200 X-Gmail-Original-Message-ID: X-Gm-Features: Ac12FXwe-aNnj7Hf764T3SRtclN2XPwGym1nJtKBX8FUlKtLFz9mQg525FR-TIs Message-ID: Subject: Re: [MAINTAINER SUMMIT] Adding more formality around feature inclusion and ejection To: Greg KH Cc: James Bottomley , "Theodore Ts'o" , ksummit@lists.linux.dev, linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable On Fri, Aug 22, 2025 at 2:03=E2=80=AFPM Greg KH wrote: > > On Fri, Aug 22, 2025 at 09:09:04AM +0100, James Bottomley wrote: > > So what I saw is that as developers exercised this and effectively > > disengaged unless directly attacked, it pretty much became all on Linus > > because no-one was left in the chain. This is precisely where I think > > we could do with an alternative mechanism. > > You are implying here that we all just "ran away" and left Linus to hold > the bag here, which is NOT the case at all. This specific issue has > been discussed to death in a lot of different threads, public and > private with lots of people involved and none of that would have been > any different had we had some sort of "process document" ahead of time. > > So I don't think that attempting to codify the very rare occurrences like > this is going to really help out much, given that they are all unique to > their time/place/subsystem based on our past history like this. I agree.