workflows.vger.kernel.org archive mirror
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: Laurent Pinchart <laurent.pinchart@ideasonboard.com>
To: Mauro Carvalho Chehab <mchehab+huawei@kernel.org>
Cc: Simona Vetter <simona.vetter@ffwll.ch>,
	linux-media@vger.kernel.org, Jonathan Corbet <corbet@lwn.net>,
	linux-doc@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org,
	workflows@vger.kernel.org, Hans Verkuil <hverkuil@xs4ll.nl>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] docs: media: document media multi-committers rules and process
Date: Thu, 28 Nov 2024 21:08:13 +0200	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <20241128190813.GB13852@pendragon.ideasonboard.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20241128192842.0ce29c88@foz.lan>

On Thu, Nov 28, 2024 at 07:28:42PM +0100, Mauro Carvalho Chehab wrote:
> Em Wed, 27 Nov 2024 15:48:10 +0100 Simona Vetter escreveu:
> 
> > Jumping in the middle here with some clarifications.
> > 
> > On Wed, 27 Nov 2024 at 12:19, Laurent Pinchart wrote:
> > > On Wed, Nov 27, 2024 at 10:39:48AM +0100, Mauro Carvalho Chehab wrote:  
> > > > It is somewhat similar to drm-intel and drm-xe, where reviews are part
> > > > of the acceptance criteria to become committers.  
> > >
> > > Those are corporate trees, so it's easier to set such rules.  
> > 
> > Imo it's the other way round, because it's corporate you need stricter
> > rules and spell them all out clearly - managers just love to apply
> > pressure on their engineers too much otherwise "because it's our own
> > tree". Totally forgetting that it's still part of the overall upstream,
> > and that they don't own upstream.
> > 
> > So that's why the corporate trees are stricter than drm-misc, but the
> > goals are still exactly the same:
> > 
> > - peer review is required in a tit-for-tat market, but not more.
> > 
> > - committers push their own stuff, that's all. Senior committers often
> >   also push other people's work, like for smaller work they just reviewed
> >   or of people they mentor, but it's not required at all.
> > 
> > - maintainership duties, like sending around pr, making sure patches dont
> >   get lost and things like that, is separate from commit rights. In my
> >   opinion, if you tie commit rights to maintainership you're doing
> >   something else than drm and I'd more call it a group maintainership
> >   model, not a commit rights model for landing patches.
> 
> Right now, our focus is for driver maintainers to become committers,
> so they all have maintainership duties as well.

Mauro, that may be your focus, but it's not "ours".

> The requirement we're adding is to ensure that they're doing a
> good work as committers/maintainers, reviewing patches from others,
> as otherwise nobody will do that.
> 
> Now, once we start getting drivers with lots of developers working
> on them without maintainership status, we can start including
> them, but this is not our reality, as usually, there is usually
> only one or, at most a couple of developers per driver.
> 
> > Anyway just figured I'll clarify what we do over at drm. I haven't looked
> > at all the details of this proposal here and the already lengthy
> > discussion, plus it's really not on me to chime in since I'm not involved.

-- 
Regards,

Laurent Pinchart

  reply	other threads:[~2024-11-28 19:08 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 26+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
2024-11-25 13:28 Mauro Carvalho Chehab
2024-11-26 15:19 ` Laurent Pinchart
2024-11-27  9:39   ` Mauro Carvalho Chehab
2024-11-27 11:19     ` Laurent Pinchart
2024-11-27 14:48       ` Simona Vetter
2024-11-28 11:24         ` Jani Nikula
2024-11-28 18:47           ` Mauro Carvalho Chehab
2024-11-28 21:27             ` Jani Nikula
2024-11-28 21:52               ` Simona Vetter
2024-11-29  2:21                 ` Mauro Carvalho Chehab
2024-11-29  1:57               ` Mauro Carvalho Chehab
2024-11-28 18:28         ` Mauro Carvalho Chehab
2024-11-28 19:08           ` Laurent Pinchart [this message]
2024-11-27 11:54     ` Mauro Carvalho Chehab
2024-11-27 13:39       ` Laurent Pinchart
2024-11-27 15:09         ` Mauro Carvalho Chehab
2024-11-27 17:59           ` Laurent Pinchart
2024-11-27 11:59   ` Hans Verkuil
2024-11-27 13:25     ` Laurent Pinchart
2024-11-28 18:15       ` Mauro Carvalho Chehab
2024-11-28 19:07         ` Laurent Pinchart
2024-11-29 10:29           ` Mauro Carvalho Chehab
2024-12-02 10:24             ` Laurent Pinchart
2024-11-28  8:19     ` Mauro Carvalho Chehab
2024-11-28  9:31       ` Laurent Pinchart
2024-11-28 17:44     ` Mauro Carvalho Chehab

Reply instructions:

You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:

* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
  and reply-to-all from there: mbox

  Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style

* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
  switches of git-send-email(1):

  git send-email \
    --in-reply-to=20241128190813.GB13852@pendragon.ideasonboard.com \
    --to=laurent.pinchart@ideasonboard.com \
    --cc=corbet@lwn.net \
    --cc=hverkuil@xs4ll.nl \
    --cc=linux-doc@vger.kernel.org \
    --cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
    --cc=linux-media@vger.kernel.org \
    --cc=mchehab+huawei@kernel.org \
    --cc=simona.vetter@ffwll.ch \
    --cc=workflows@vger.kernel.org \
    /path/to/YOUR_REPLY

  https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html

* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
  via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox