Re: [PATCH] update xfs maintainers

[Ben Myers]

Hey Dave,

On Mon, Nov 11, 2013 at 10:12:41AM +1100, Dave Chinner wrote:
> On Sat, Nov 09, 2013 at 06:30:49PM -0600, Ben Myers wrote:
> > On Sat, Nov 09, 2013 at 05:51:30PM -0600, Ben Myers wrote:
> > > On Sat, Nov 09, 2013 at 10:44:24AM +1100, NeilBrown wrote:
> > > > On Sat, 9 Nov 2013 06:59:00 +0800 Zhi Yong Wu <zwu.kernel@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> > > > > On Sat, Nov 9, 2013 at 6:03 AM, Ben Myers <bpm@xxxxxxx> wrote:
> > > > > > On Fri, Nov 08, 2013 at 03:50:21PM -0500, Ric Wheeler wrote:
> > > > > >> On 11/08/2013 03:46 PM, Ben Myers wrote:
> > > > > >> >Hey Christoph,
> > > > > >> >
> > > > > >> >On Fri, Nov 08, 2013 at 11:34:24AM -0800, Christoph Hellwig wrote:
> > > > > >> >>On Fri, Nov 08, 2013 at 12:03:37PM -0600, Ben Myers wrote:
> > > > > >> >>>Mark is replacing Alex as my backup because Alex is really busy at
> > > > > >> >>>Linaro and asked to be taken off awhile ago.  The holiday season is
> > > > > >> >>>coming up and I fully intend to go off my meds, turn in to Fonzy the
> > > > > >> >>>bear, and eat my hat.  I need someone to watch the shop while I'm off
> > > > > >> >>>exploring on Mars.  I trust Mark to do that because he is totally
> > > > > >> >>>awesome.
> > > > > >> >>
> > > > > >> >>Doing this as an unilateral decisions is not something that will win you
> > > > > >> >>a fan base.
> > > > > >> >It's posted for review.
> > > > > >> >
> > > > > >> >>While we never had anything reassembling a democracy in Linux Kernel
> > > > > >> >>development making decisions without even contacting the major
> > > > > >> >>contributor is wrong, twice so if the maintainer is a relatively minor
> > > > > >> >>contributor to start with.
> > > > > >> >>
> > > > > >> >>Just because it recent came up elsewhere I'd like to recite the
> > > > > >> >>definition from Trond here again:
> > > > > >> >>
> > > > > >> >>    http://lists.linux-foundation.org/pipermail/ksummit-2012-discuss/2012-June/000066.html
> 
> Yup, and my take on the role of a Maintainer is here:
> 
> http://oss.sgi.com/archives/xfs/2013-08/msg00633.html
> 
> > > > > >  P:     Silicon Graphics Inc
> > > > > > +M:     Dave Chinner <dchinner@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> 
> I flattered by this, but there is a reason I've resisted taking this
> position for a long time. Mainly for the reasons already mentioned:
> 
> > > > Indeed.  And does he even want the job?  I heard Linus say in a recent
> > > > interview that being a maintainer is a $#!+ job. 
> > > 
> > > I've found that it can be a little bit stressful sometimes and it tends to
> > > crowd out feature work, so I guess I agree with him.  It turns out to be an
> > > excellent weight loss plan.
> 
> which are all true, but I'm already pulling most patches off the
> list, applying them to my own trees, testing them and reviewing
> them. Hence juggling them into a stable, non-rebasing git tree
> branch on a server somewhere isn't a huge amount of extra work...
> 
> > > > Is it really best for the
> > > > most active developers to be burdened with that extra work?
> > > > 
> > > > (hmm.. maybe I should add Dave to the Cc here .. but no-one else did so best
> > > > leave him alone to code in peace).
> > > 
> > > Dave, what do you want to do here?  Which email?  What sort of arrangement?  I
> > > gather that you probably do want the job, and I know you'll be fantastic.  Do
> > > you want to do it all yourself?  Maybe split it up?
> > 
> > I should have also suggested that we can add you to this file and just keep our
> > existing arrangements.  That seems appropriate to me, befitting of your
> > achievements, the work you've been doing, and I'm willing to keep on as I am.
> 
> OK, I've read the thread and had a think about it. My thoughts are
> as follows....
> 
> I'm not interested in being a co-maintainer in name only or only as
> a backup to only be used when Ben goes on holidays.
> 
> Co-maintainer means SGI is giving me all the access and admin rights
> needed to commit and maintain git trees on oss.sgi.com (including
> creating new trees) at any time, at any point in a release cycle,
> etc. i.e. I can do anything that Ben can currently do on
> oss.sgi.com from XFS POV...
> 
> Co-maintainer is not a kernel-tree only deal. It's for everything
> XFS related: kernel code, xfsprogs, xfstests and xfsdump.
> 
> Co-maintainer does not mean "Dave does everything". Yes, I can do a
> lot of the heavy lifting, but I'm very happy for Ben to continue
> committing patches he reviews and handling userspace releases and
> pushing stuff to Linus and so on.  There's some logistics we need to
> work out here so we aren't going to step on each other's toes, but
> there's no unsolvable issues here.
> 
> Co-maintainer is not a role I will perform with a Red Hat on. I will
> review and sign off on anything in my co-maintainer role as
> "david@xxxxxxxxxxxxx". Hence I hope to be able to maintain a clear
> distinction between the duties I perform on behalf of the community
> and code that I write on Red Hat's behalf.
> 
> Lastly, being a maintainer doesn't solve the problem of review
> latency of the code I write. I'm hoping that everyone understands
> that maintainers are still dependent on the receiving help from the
> community they serve to get their own work done.
> 
> Ben, let's talk more about the logistics of this offline first
> before making anything official....

Sounds good.  I'm AFK on Monday, so I'll ping you later in the week and
we can get together.  ;)

Regards,
	Ben
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/