On 3/7/07, Mauro Carvalho Chehab <mchehab@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
Hi Marcel, Em Qua, 2007-03-07 às 15:28 +0100, Marcel Siegert escreveu: > i am a bit confused on the "old" topic. > we do actually have _two_ different projects. they depend on > each other, and at least both projects are kept in one repository. Yes. IMO, we went into the right direction when we took the decision of merging their trees, avoiding the big troubles we had in the past, by trying to sync the trees and to support hybrid devices that depend on both core coding. > > we have been and still are in a discussion who is maintainer of what. > > at least my understanding has been mauro is maintaining v4l, whilst > all the dvb developers are maintaining dvb. > > mauro is and has been responsible for preparing kernel pushes/patchsets > and that work is appreciated by the dvb guys. >From my POV, this model can continue working. Currently, each developer is maintaining their drivers (no matter if the driver is v4l or dvb). DVB core is collectively maintained by their authors. My person, currently, plays with two different roles: 1) acting as subsystem (you can read /drivers/media) maintainer, responsible for kernel patch acceptance, reviewing, according with best practices, patch merging at master tree, patch submission to mainstream, etc, forwarding to each driver author (or maintainer) any subject I receive about their driver. This applies for all drivers under the subsystem as a hole; 2) Maintaining V4L core stuff and the V4L drivers for whose author delegated maintainership to me or that are otherwise abandoned by their authors. This task is shared with a great team of developers that helps maintaining the drivers I took the responsibility (we have several contributions, on regular basis, for tuner, cx88, bttv and saa7134). Also, V4L core changes are always discussed by the community and the developers.
Nice written but I'm not sure if it's good to keep it that way. If core topics are discussed only a very few developers participate and "great team of developers" depends on what you discuss. I could easily prove that I got misleaded here already several times. I wonder how someone could respect a core developer who does that.
> but, due to recently upcoming discussions, who maintains what and why, > we could stop this time consumption by just opening up a poll/voting/pedition > if we need a "one person" dvb subtree maintainer and if so, who it is to be. If I understood your point, you are proposing to elect one maintainer for DVB core (since the drivers should still be kept maintained by each developer).
it would be nice if the initial core developers or a company with a good background would participate here.
Personally, I don't see any gain with this. Instead, IMHO, we should work on properly identifying the maintainer for each driver. There are some drivers that doesn't seem to be maintained by nobody (webcam drivers, radio drivers, dvb drivers). I tried once to identify the responsibilities, but there were several holes at my list. As a suggestion, we may, add a CREDITS file at the tree, with the name of the responsible(s) for each driver. > if that is done someday in the nearer future, we can start over to develop > not to discuss the same stuff regularly without a result. Yes. It is a pain having to stop with development to discuss such questions. > that were my 2 ct for now. > > best regards > marcel >
Markus _______________________________________________ linux-dvb mailing list linux-dvb@xxxxxxxxxxx http://www.linuxtv.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/linux-dvb
