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 8247218651 for ; Tue, 4 Jun 2024 22:38:32 +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=1717540713; cv=none; b=tQzHYwqlPYZyZZgUHKOFAVxVHvI8YNNW4mnETwvEbbNRL7TxHwTVv/GFRvR7FNxtLgoc7K9eV/JwA9Aii/CxQDi8MLaV5LHtPeck4at017f0+WL/FUIFTdZFUQb7cAJqiPkEUpDS1RLwKlM1uQpbYfKGCXSPgQfOY4EthJ9IecY= ARC-Message-Signature:i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1717540713; c=relaxed/simple; bh=eTVbJYNcRxBnM9BFsT5/89qCcpbZKgNIgzwjEfgN/dc=; h=Date:From:To:cc:Subject:In-Reply-To:Message-ID:References: MIME-Version:Content-Type; b=T4vefRRG2LWEpvmzXFO0HWm+aumI9/S3sVgR3eYw+q7gro6XrXTVLVxbWrZs2Kh04uj87vhMWH9bVjKyD1n8Osgy7594PEr2zR2IT7s+8y2rYQnNnIEkRb6bnDoN+xvbQVZmHsi6ruVv747Dp4FP+zlIRGnZldeJRXlg9ZYsbP0= ARC-Authentication-Results:i=1; smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=kernel.org header.i=@kernel.org header.b=LKiDmy4T; 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="LKiDmy4T" Received: by smtp.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 76EE5C2BBFC; Tue, 4 Jun 2024 22:38:31 +0000 (UTC) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=kernel.org; s=k20201202; t=1717540712; bh=eTVbJYNcRxBnM9BFsT5/89qCcpbZKgNIgzwjEfgN/dc=; h=Date:From:To:cc:Subject:In-Reply-To:References:From; b=LKiDmy4TtzP2y1FbCKfSD7jS6UhZhTsiT8yj6attJd4upYLhMoqoUUvWITYnG7UMb ielGqYnJE6XH7IwvX8IpLlOvCP1fHs0dfC7H2NMtc3CnokuLuFyq+aPM9g6jE91SMb 9RFILgzwxom8pLSbIVn//n5W4VeHzud/ZvudFT0YEHZddDsT6Ic3EU2+H0gBP6FgiH r4Ql6mDnhkxQhsyFSTyTCbIRiHNHJDu9EcDO0jxStVsxkLI5CoYVL5pEcgn20B8g5i FIDdmFVdWbojuVE4PS54oQ/CnB3MfB9YpnafsQv6mRho/zJKuRqjE8qaIFWcHCMKvR 7qenNiYSvoCoA== Date: Wed, 5 Jun 2024 00:38:28 +0200 (CEST) From: Jiri Kosina To: Sasha Levin cc: ksummit@lists.linux.dev Subject: Re: [MAINTAINERS SUMMIT] Merge tree too flat? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: References: 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 Tue, 4 Jun 2024, Sasha Levin wrote: > I'm not sure we should be pushing for a more hierarchial tree. Yes, it's > flat, but is it the issue we're trying to address? That's one of the postulated questions :) Distributing the merge load more evenly (by eliminating "hot spots" where a lot of merges are happening all the time) might help with the overload in some areas. > I'd argue that what we want is more co-maintainer groups where several > folks share the burden. This, in turn, makes the tree look flat (all of > "x86" is one maintainer group, for example). tip tree is a great example of this being implemented by a load of topic branches. Not much to be improved in that particular area, I'd say :) Thanks, -- Jiri Kosina SUSE Labs