[Top] [All Lists]

Re: XFS maintainership

To: Eric Sandeen <sandeen@xxxxxxxxxxx>
Subject: Re: XFS maintainership
From: Felix Blyakher <felixb@xxxxxxx>
Date: Wed, 14 Jan 2009 12:05:01 -0600
Cc: "Bill O'Donnell" <billodo@xxxxxxx>, Russell Cattelan <cattelan@xxxxxxxxxxx>, xfs@xxxxxxxxxxx
In-reply-to: <496E1F75.8040300@xxxxxxxxxxx>
References: <200901090619.n096Jp20017008@xxxxxxxxxxx> <20090109065935.GA1600@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> <20090109215218.GB10221@xxxxxxx> <4968E61D.6070505@xxxxxxxxxxx> <20090113131855.GB8396@xxxxxxx> <20090114012845.GO8071@disturbed> <20090114054917.GT8071@disturbed> <20090114055050.GU8071@disturbed> <496E1F75.8040300@xxxxxxxxxxx>

On Jan 14, 2009, at 11:23 AM, Eric Sandeen wrote:

Dave Chinner wrote:
It seems to me that SGI wants to maintain control without doing any
of the work that having that control requires of them.  i.e. take
without any give....

Point in case: we have a _critical_ 2.6.28 regression w.r.t.
directory handling. The community triaged the bug, the community
fixed the bug and the community reviewed the fix. It got checked
into the SGI controlled dev tree 4 days ago.  Now we are waiting for
SGI to stop playing "let's all be one happy family la-la-la" games
and get off their backsides and *act as responsible maintainers* by
pushing the fix to Linus ASAP.

Please, show us that SGI is really going to act as the maintainer of
XFS. The only thing that will convince me right now that SGI should
continue as XFS maintainer is this:

        "Gesta non verba"

Ooh, bonus points for the Latin!

Since 12/10, when Melbourne got erased, there have only been 6 emails
from sgi to the list which were not from the short-timer skeleton crew
left in Melbourne. 3 of these had something to do with development. 2
were related to this question of maintainership.  1 was a test email.

OK, we're all here, and listening, and learning, and getting to
know the process and responsibilities, setting up right environment,
all that transitional stuff.
Yes, we're overwhelmed at the moment, but not going to hide in
the bushes. Just need some time.

Meanwhile almost 100 patches have been sent, reviewed, and in many cases
committed by hch & others to the staging trees on kernel.org.

Hmm, while not actively participating, I've been monitoring
all xfs channels I know of. I haven't seen 100 patches lately.
Where they all posted to this list?
Also, I think, I replied to one. Sure, it's not the right level
of activity, but as I said, it's still transition period here.

proposed new maintainer crew has not participated in this process yet to
any apparent degree.  No questions, no reviews, no acks, no vetoes.
This is not a personal attack by any means, but it seems that it might
reflect the resources available for these tasks inside sgi.

From my perspective, it certainly appears that much more xfs work is
being done outside sgi than inside sgi at this point in time.  This
*should* be a good thing for sgi, because one of your flagship storage
software offerings is being maintained & moving forward with very few
resource requirements from sgi.

But if sgi's role is simply to own and to veto and not to communicate,
collaborate, facilitate or contribute,

No, that's definitely not on anybody's mind here.
I know, community were waiting for our comments on the process,
but I tried not to reply with promises, but rather wait till
first commit. As it's not there yet, here is my reply, not the
way I wanted, though.

sgi will likely find that they've
been left behind in short order.  The internet is famous for routing
around damage.

On the other hand, we're here to help, if you engage us.

Thanks, we'll definitely need that, but expecting that to
be mutual. I have no doubt we'll contribute as well.

-Eric (speaking for myself, not my employer, FWIW)

Felix (not speaking for sgi only)



PS: I did say I was going to make myself unpopular :/

Perhaps only with some :)

xfs mailing list

<Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread>