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 A3AFC323 for ; Mon, 25 Jul 2016 05:57:06 +0000 (UTC) Received: from mail-oi0-f66.google.com (mail-oi0-f66.google.com [209.85.218.66]) by smtp1.linuxfoundation.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 0D0B117E for ; Mon, 25 Jul 2016 05:57:05 +0000 (UTC) Received: by mail-oi0-f66.google.com with SMTP id l9so15771757oih.0 for ; Sun, 24 Jul 2016 22:57:05 -0700 (PDT) MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: <20160722200206.GA3703@f23x64.localdomain> References: <20160722200206.GA3703@f23x64.localdomain> From: Daniel Vetter Date: Mon, 25 Jul 2016 07:57:04 +0200 Message-ID: To: Darren Hart Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 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 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? -Daniel -- Daniel Vetter Software Engineer, Intel Corporation +41 (0) 79 365 57 48 - http://blog.ffwll.ch