XFS maintainership

[Eric Sandeen]

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.

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