[Top] [All Lists]

Re: xfs: update maintainers file

To: Ric Wheeler <rwheeler@xxxxxxxxxx>
Subject: Re: xfs: update maintainers file
From: Jeff Liu <jeff.liu@xxxxxxxxxx>
Date: Fri, 08 Nov 2013 13:24:36 +0800
Cc: Mark Tinguely <tinguely@xxxxxxx>, Ben Myers <bpm@xxxxxxx>, elder@xxxxxxxxxx, Linus Torvalds <torvalds@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>, xfs@xxxxxxxxxxx
Delivered-to: xfs@xxxxxxxxxxx
In-reply-to: <527C4B27.6020205@xxxxxxxxxx>
References: <20131107220208.GY1935@xxxxxxx> <527C0F64.3010906@xxxxxxx> <527C4B27.6020205@xxxxxxxxxx>
User-agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:11.0) Gecko/20120410 Thunderbird/11.0.1
Hi folks,

I think I'm not the right person to reply this discussion because am still on 
the road
of how to cooperate with others in open source community, as well as I have not 
much contribution to XFS until now.

However, I'd to show some humble opinions from a user and a trivial developer's 
of view.

First all all, that's fine if we have a co-maintainer who can take the role 
when Ben
is on leave or busy working on other things, and also, this role may be able to 
more help to some new comers for patch review, coaching, etc... I felt Mark has 
paid a lot of effort and performed very well in this role.  At least, I got 
offline emails form Mark with the patch review status and comments, which are 
all helpful
to me. 

Secondly, I want to show respect and admiration to our core developers who are 
themselves to promote XFS in the past years.  Without those talent guys, I 
think XFS can
not move ahead rapidly with so much significant performance improvements and 
new features.
However, how can we credit them for their prominent achievements(i.e, show 
As mentioned above, I have no deep knowledge about the community rule, but I 
found out
there are several projects are maintained with more than 2 maintainers, e.g, 
XEN hypervisor
interface, VEM subsystem, a few projects even have 4 maintainers, e.g, TMP 
So I was wonder why we can not have more maintainers given that XFS code base 
become more
and more large(more than one hundred thousand lines via simple `wc -l` though 
we have much
code comments).

I really felt frustrated from Dave's:"Quite frankly, XFS upstream is completely 
right now and, as such, it's no longer a fun thing to work on.", as Dave had 
made lots of
contributions and going crazy hacking.

I wrote this just because I love this project, I still remember/appreciate 
Christoph gave me
a quick response to my first email in XFS two years ago, so that I can start to 
learn kernel
hacking from then on.


On 11/08/2013 10:23 AM, Ric Wheeler wrote:

> Hi Ben,
> How exactly did we decide to add a new co-maintainer? Shouldn't we have
> some discussion on the list and see some substantial history of
> contributions?
> Best regards,
> Ric
> On 11/07/2013 05:08 PM, Mark Tinguely wrote:
>> Updated maintainer info.
>> Signed-off-by: Ben Myers <bpm@xxxxxxx>
>> Reviewed-by: Mark Tinguely <tinguely@xxxxxxx>
>> ---
>>  MAINTAINERS |    2 +-
>>  1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-)
>> ===================================================================
>> --- a/MAINTAINERS    2013-11-07 15:42:04.554561805 -0600
>> +++ b/MAINTAINERS    2013-11-07 15:42:59.034889770 -0600
>> @@ -9388,7 +9388,7 @@ F:    drivers/xen/*swiotlb*
>>  P:    Silicon Graphics Inc
>>  M:    Ben Myers <bpm@xxxxxxx>
>> -M:    Alex Elder <elder@xxxxxxxxxx>
>> +M:    Mark Tinguely <tinguely@xxxxxxx>
>>  M:    xfs@xxxxxxxxxxx
>>  L:    xfs@xxxxxxxxxxx
>>  W:    http://oss.sgi.com/projects/xfs
>> _______________________________________________
>> xfs mailing list
>> xfs@xxxxxxxxxxx
>> http://oss.sgi.com/mailman/listinfo/xfs
> _______________________________________________
> xfs mailing list
> xfs@xxxxxxxxxxx
> http://oss.sgi.com/mailman/listinfo/xfs

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