From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from perceval.ideasonboard.com (perceval.ideasonboard.com [213.167.242.64]) (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 04C1341C94; Thu, 28 Nov 2024 19:08:26 +0000 (UTC) Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; arc=none smtp.client-ip=213.167.242.64 ARC-Seal:i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1732820908; cv=none; b=gOwshKTx3Jh71eagpx34JHgUoNhcvFC0MrjNH7Zj5/w1pZy0SWAKXixJFFhiktxQf+mQwcRWR4wZ04WHltXIfDs13gFHn6F/W+1x1m8vqYG3wBgeF/Kp12fVOVfIMQjv1eDqP00w9QTjh2HjjLGJIGVEx9av+lXFZQyE2fHUtxU= ARC-Message-Signature:i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1732820908; c=relaxed/simple; bh=v43Kz8r13RWCJirCrv+vtT1SrjfkAKhEyLOpYc4BXcg=; h=Date:From:To:Cc:Subject:Message-ID:References:MIME-Version: Content-Type:Content-Disposition:In-Reply-To; b=lFn8Ue6ZN5uugYnKAYFsrLhDfnbIvgeiJ27UFtb94Zzb2/6xCWcu0veOTFeyDcy2udk96r1397YhPdfY+LYi6jbmb37dvienPtHBGD2GHgM70KHJ9v1LWzV2VzJQzp0ZEO5/i4/F49eqOFJR70Gyg+JtoNIaNq1dYwJzFSIzZdI= ARC-Authentication-Results:i=1; smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dmarc=none (p=none dis=none) header.from=ideasonboard.com; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=ideasonboard.com; dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.d=ideasonboard.com header.i=@ideasonboard.com header.b=fYYEtnTO; arc=none smtp.client-ip=213.167.242.64 Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dmarc=none (p=none dis=none) header.from=ideasonboard.com Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=ideasonboard.com Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.d=ideasonboard.com header.i=@ideasonboard.com header.b="fYYEtnTO" Received: from pendragon.ideasonboard.com (81-175-209-231.bb.dnainternet.fi [81.175.209.231]) by perceval.ideasonboard.com (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 6CDB2526; Thu, 28 Nov 2024 20:08:01 +0100 (CET) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=ideasonboard.com; s=mail; t=1732820881; bh=v43Kz8r13RWCJirCrv+vtT1SrjfkAKhEyLOpYc4BXcg=; h=Date:From:To:Cc:Subject:References:In-Reply-To:From; b=fYYEtnTOfC2tpd3x1H6Eek9ICxq+KMsk4O+bBbe+0MkQWMYtvhTki2Ilw4nSfdq3u Y8yFev68FKeIlZ9khqK2zru9+cs1xAfYGv6N8503QvGZUYleHQdX4XVRbLiM8iFXEK sN3jAD+n4NNa4groR35EVt31V13cuHGIFGjMqwU0= Date: Thu, 28 Nov 2024 21:08:13 +0200 From: Laurent Pinchart To: Mauro Carvalho Chehab Cc: Simona Vetter , linux-media@vger.kernel.org, Jonathan Corbet , linux-doc@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, workflows@vger.kernel.org, Hans Verkuil Subject: Re: [PATCH] docs: media: document media multi-committers rules and process Message-ID: <20241128190813.GB13852@pendragon.ideasonboard.com> References: <6a3e19d75e504ebbf9cd9212faad12c005dfdfb8.1732541337.git.mchehab+huawei@kernel.org> <20241126151930.GA5493@pendragon.ideasonboard.com> <20241127103948.501b5a05@foz.lan> <20241127111901.GG31095@pendragon.ideasonboard.com> <20241128192842.0ce29c88@foz.lan> Precedence: bulk X-Mailing-List: workflows@vger.kernel.org List-Id: List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: inline 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