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 76BD1DDCD for ; Tue, 4 Jun 2024 22:03:49 +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=1717538629; cv=none; b=ltYEP0eTqBiDKuFIlM7nJ4GCh75q2SAmuQmR8+J4Usd0DMKKKKjqFoaNhB3YXIWYoymeTPPgXN58k+biLM3eT32zjk3xYdbVHSK9OJPqyjugTa3VfW6GIN9X2WN5AjWZ3zJHVqCe0F1Sp7lZ6zZ2ICt/c1ew6lVjNVwrIyrmDhs= ARC-Message-Signature:i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1717538629; c=relaxed/simple; bh=IiaRcE2Zr7F3mCh35E8eqTHFlE/uZoPHgwEjvOCPYwI=; h=Date:From:To:Subject:Message-ID:MIME-Version:Content-Type; b=A6tCIFxzMnF7q6E246BDdM0T9uoDef4yxJumxyAhTuonN6cP5rwWYkiNSxGyzECp/slAYcluRHuY2glIq7SgzoT2z9Kx+cf/4q+Tl6K0u0MNwzRcllR+sZrmpJDtCPZLZI0LkakDO0W7/e6STYuvzb0bWDz8YExYKt9iJKgeSw0= ARC-Authentication-Results:i=1; smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=kernel.org header.i=@kernel.org header.b=oVUK+U8r; 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="oVUK+U8r" Received: by smtp.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 9B2CAC2BBFC for ; Tue, 4 Jun 2024 22:03:48 +0000 (UTC) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=kernel.org; s=k20201202; t=1717538629; bh=IiaRcE2Zr7F3mCh35E8eqTHFlE/uZoPHgwEjvOCPYwI=; h=Date:From:To:Subject:From; b=oVUK+U8ri7b4ML61i3lVrwSD+XrvUbnMvWO0U82JDHBgc1tQRuNz2V3JInErdw202 VUWmnZNPubjUhDyoguVF/VXki+1U4W186oesAvEB7MNJ74tjhpEGjHDQ3317igjVGq frFasm8aDaM2g94MGr7vhTsaIlE3iPF6H0LY8jcUUU/wCEyUYU5L3QejVl6+hvyYyd H/3tGVNxLPKHgbZ7rNZAwf5hfCOsspn5wORUH8W1YiHZE65WeaWD4KLH80w1S6ZteS PTqerqyEw3AVqiB9py+PfVVOmcGO+5OCtCbkx2Xs/RXfqyey0qqUvst8wohummVDNU ifHRcVNRSvf0w== Date: Wed, 5 Jun 2024 00:03:45 +0200 (CEST) From: Jiri Kosina To: ksummit@lists.linux.dev Subject: [MAINTAINERS SUMMIT] Merge tree too flat? Message-ID: User-Agent: Alpine 2.21 (LSU 202 2017-01-01) Precedence: bulk X-Mailing-List: ksummit@lists.linux.dev List-Id: List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII On last year's maintainer summit, there was a session where Linus asked the participants to bring up topics / questions [1]. I myself was the one raising the concern of the merge tree feeling a little bit too flat, and there seemed to be general agreement on that. Checking the git repository as of now, it seems like we have not changed anything in that respect over the past year, and a lot of things are going directly to Linus although they could be cascaded a little bit better, contributing to better load-balancing on all maintainer levels (including the top-level one, of course). I'd like to propose this as a proper discussion topic slot this year, by e.g. looking at: - the actual numbers and current merge graph - is this really something that could improve maintainer load (on all levels) and throughput if done properly? - how could we motivate maintainers to change the process and delegate more into proper hierarchical sub-trees? - potentially identify particular trees and changes that could be made in the merge graph/path to improve the process [1] https://lwn.net/Articles/952146/ -- Jiri Kosina SUSE Labs