xfs
[Top] [All Lists]

Re: [PATCH] update xfs maintainers

To: Zhi Yong Wu <zwu.kernel@xxxxxxxxx>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] update xfs maintainers
From: NeilBrown <neilb@xxxxxxx>
Date: Sat, 9 Nov 2013 10:44:24 +1100
Cc: Ben Myers <bpm@xxxxxxx>, Ric Wheeler <rwheeler@xxxxxxxxxx>, elder@xxxxxxxxxx, Mark Tinguely <tinguely@xxxxxxx>, "linux-kernel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx" <linux-kernel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>, xfstests <xfs@xxxxxxxxxxx>, Christoph Hellwig <hch@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>, Linus Torvalds <torvalds@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Delivered-to: xfs@xxxxxxxxxxx
In-reply-to: <CAEH94LidwFnLX7cxetBAAzYzRGL+pc96egDNKPFKuPYcqKOtNg@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
References: <20131107220208.GY1935@xxxxxxx> <527C0F64.3010906@xxxxxxx> <527C4B27.6020205@xxxxxxxxxx> <527CC50D.4060905@xxxxxxxxxx> <20131108180337.GO10553@xxxxxxx> <20131108193424.GA11052@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> <20131108204605.GA1935@xxxxxxx> <527D4E8D.3000109@xxxxxxxxxx> <20131108220309.GB1935@xxxxxxx> <CAEH94LidwFnLX7cxetBAAzYzRGL+pc96egDNKPFKuPYcqKOtNg@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
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:
> > Hey Ric,
> >
> > 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
> >> >>
> >> >>By many of the creative roles enlisted there it's clear that Dave should
> >> >>be the maintainer.  He's been the main contributor and chief architect
> >> >>for XFS for many year, while the maintainers came and went at the mercy
> >> >>of SGI.  This is not meant to bad mouth either of you as I think you're
> >> >>doing a reasonably good job compared to other maintainers, but at the
> >> >>same time the direction is set by other people that have a much longer
> >> >>involvement with the project, and having them officially in control
> >> >>would help us forward a lot.  It would also avoid having to spend
> >> >>considerable resources to train every new generation of SGI maintainer.
> >> >>
> >> >>Coming to and end I would like to maintain Dave Chinner as the primary
> >> >>XFS maintainer for all the work he has done as biggest contributor and
> >> >>architect of XFS since longer than I can remember, and I would love to
> >> >>retain Ben Myers as a co-maintainer for all the good work he has done
> >> >>maintaining and reviewing patches since November 2011.
> >> >I think we're doing a decent job too.  So thanks for that much at least.  
> >> >;)
> >> >>I would also like to use this post as a public venue to condemn the
> >> >>unilateral smokey backroom decisions about XFS maintainership that SGI is
> >> >>trying to enforce on the community.
> >> >That really didn't happen Christoph.  It's not in my tree or in a pull 
> >> >request.
> >> >
> >> >Linus, let me know what you want to do.  I do think we're doing a fair 
> >> >job over
> >> >here, and (geez) I'm just trying to add Mark as my backup since Alex is 
> >> >too
> >> >busy.  I know the RH people want more control, and that's understandable, 
> >> >but
> >> >they really don't need to replace me to get their code in.  Ouch.
> >> >
> >> >Thanks,
> >> >     Ben
> >>
> >> Christoph is not a Red Hat person.
> >>
> >> Jeff is from Oracle.
> >>
> >> This is not a Red Hat vs SGI thing,
> >
> > Sorry if my read on that was wrong.
> >
> >> Dave simply has earned the right
> >> to take on the formal leadership role of maintainer.
> >
> > Then we're gonna need some Reviewed-bys.  ;)
> >
> > From: Ben Myers <bpm@xxxxxxx>
> >
> > xfs: update maintainers
> >
> > Add Dave as maintainer of XFS.
> >
> > Signed-off-by: Ben Myers <bpm@xxxxxxx>
> > ---
> >  MAINTAINERS |    2 +-
> >  1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-)
> >
> > Index: b/MAINTAINERS
> > ===================================================================
> > --- a/MAINTAINERS       2013-11-08 15:20:18.935186245 -0600
> > +++ b/MAINTAINERS       2013-11-08 15:22:50.685245977 -0600
> > @@ -9387,8 +9387,8 @@ F:        drivers/xen/*swiotlb*
> >
> >  XFS FILESYSTEM
> >  P:     Silicon Graphics Inc
> > +M:     Dave Chinner <dchinner@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> Use his personal private mail account? I guess that you should ask for
> his opinion at first, or it is more appropriate that he submit this
> patch by himself.
> 

Indeed.  And does he even want the job?  I heard Linus say in a recent
interview that being a maintainer is a $#!+ job.  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).

NeilBrown

Attachment: signature.asc
Description: PGP signature

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