>> It would be useful for you to advertise this intention and send things >> like details out to the kernel mailing list. I'll need to re-read my >> IRC logs but I don't remember you mentioning any of the above, which >> does sound reasonable, to me in the conversation we had. I'm not sure >> the conversation that was outlined in the ARM mailing list but it >> sounds like something that should be broadcast more to the Fedora >> kernel list. > > You aren't wrong, and I'll be sure to do that with some of the stuff > we're thinking about that came up last night. However, there are > literally 4 people that commit. I thought I had spoken to each of > them individually. Seems my memory is going. Maybe, as it wasn't on list I couldn't comment, at least from the conversation you had with me I didn't get the idea that this was a general change of direction so maybe there was some miscommunication. >>> We aren't making special rules just for you. >> >> We maybe it's just the way it seems as until now I've not seen anyone >> else be targeted prior to this.... maybe it's just me doing work! > > See the thread with Kyle from last night. Seriously, stop thinking > we're targeting you. I have seen it now (mailing lists are good for procrastination!), this thread pre dates that though. >> Is that round about terms meaning that the Fedora kernel team are >> going to start to assist in the ARM issues :-D > > Not exactly. It's more "hey, primary arches aren't supposed to be > broken willy-nilly, so we should probably pay attention to ARM more > now and not break it at random." That's not so much "assist" as it is > "do no harm". :-D well the upstream ARM people seems to manage to do that all on their own... see omap4 and Panda* state as a perfect example of that :-P >> I try to help and keep the impact of ARM down for you guys but kernel >> isn't a core skill I ever thought I wanted to learn (I often say about >> ARM that I now know more about the Fedora Core OS and kernel than I >> ever thought I wanted to know!) and if the process becomes too arduous >> I stop enjoying it and I'll go and find some other project to get my >> teeth into as there's no shortage. I'm not saying here that the >> process doesn't need to change and improve but just be aware I think >> it needs balance and it needs to be measured so that you don't scare >> off the people that are trying to help you. > > Please review the thread with Kyle last night. That's kind of where > we're headed and feedback on that would be good. I've read and replied on one point. I've never used patchworks but seen it a lot around so I can't really comment on that specifically but it seems useful. On the rest it seems mostly OK. >>> Also, for the past several years we've been less than transparent >>> about what patches we take and why we take them. Not just for ARM, >>> but overall. I think we need to fix that. I think having a bug >>> attached to it is fairly clear. If there's no bug, post to the list. >>> This isn't extremely difficult to do and it applies to everyone. >> >> Well I don't think targeting me (at least that's what it appears to >> me) is the way to fix that. I don't see any wider announcement to the > > I'm beginning to believe that there is nothing I can say that will > convince you that we aren't targeting you. Do you have some kind of > persecution complex :)? Nope! It's mostly just from what I've read myself and I've had others comment to me "Wow what did you do wrong to piss jwb off so bad" but I believe you now. Maybe it's just a communication problem. Believe me I generally couldn't give a shit and hell... I've been dealing with the pain of ARM kernel stuff for nearly two years now and I'm mostly still sane (shush!) and I'm still here... >> list or even updated on the Kernel wiki page. In fact to quote from >> the wiki "If you are sending lots of changes to the Fedora kernel, >> then it may make more sense for you to get commit access. (Note, for >> most things, sending them upstream is far more preferable)." > > The wiki is a horribly out of date thing. To be honest, I haven't > read the wiki in months. Point taken, we'll update it, possibly by > just deleting a lot of things. Then probably adding whatever we come > up with here. Even if you delete a lot of it and put a message "if your unsure go and ask on the kernel mailing list and #fedora-kernel IRC" :-) >>> As I said before, config changes are probably fine without posting. >>> Patches, particularly out-of-tree patches, should get some simple >>> review. >> >> Probably fine? If they're more widely impacting I will most certainly >> post them just like I've done them in the past. Personally I think I >> have a pretty good overview of the impact of config changes in the ARM >> sphere and I think it then becomes arduous for all involved. > > Sure. Wide ranging things can get posted as you have done. I was > mostly referring to the "toggle 3 ARM drivers in the ARM configs" kind > of things. To be honest, I'm good with posting everything, but I was > trying to avoid additional burden. Presumably the config updates during the rawhide kernel devel merge window is a special case here ;-) >>> In simple view, you are correct. It doesn't break anything else. In >>> the larger view, I really want to start backing away from random patch >>> grabs. Upstream has a review process for a reason, and I'd like to >>> leverage that for patches we carry. Otherwise we wind up carrying >>> patches that are "getting in RSN" which aren't actually getting in any >>> time soon. >> >> Believe me I don't like patch grabs either! But similar to secureboot >> there are some that are useful such as the BeagleBone Black support >> and some other devices that are key to getting people engaging and > > Sure. Post them, we'll get them in. I'm trying to get that done for 3.12 atm so that we can get some wider testing >> using Fedora on ARM and I believe in those cases, like secure boot, >> the patches are justifiable to open Fedora on ARM and Fedora in >> general up to a wider audience. > > Absolutely. That doesn't mean they shouldn't get posted (and tracked > in patchwork if we go that way). It's arguable we want them reviewed > even more closely because they're going to impact a wider audience > with the explicit goal of attracting people. Yep, seems reasonable. > Really, it's about knowing where things are coming from and where > they're headed, and making sure we aren't grabbing incomplete stuff > from upstream. The conversation with Kyle from last night on this > list go towards that too, so please weigh in. Yep, it sounds reasonable, I've always tried to provide a comment in the .spec to where I've pulled a patch from as much as for my own sanity and memory :-) Peter _______________________________________________ kernel mailing list kernel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/kernel
