On Wed, 6 Aug 2008 10:39:03 +0200 Jean Delvare <khali at linux-fr.org> wrote: > Hi Mark, Andrew, > > On Fri, 1 Aug 2008 00:10:27 -0400, Mark M. Hoffman wrote: > > Hi Linus: > > > > Please pull from: > > git://lm-sensors.org/kernel/mhoffman/hwmon-2.6.git release > > > > You'll get what few patches I've managed to look at in the last few months, > > including a patch to MAINTAINERS which makes it official. I'm sorry I was > > not able to keep up - I should have admitted defeat much sooner. > > I'm sad to see you go (and can only hope that you won't leave the > project entirely). But I would also like to thank you for the good work > you've done. Even if it was short, everything you did is done and > that's something you can be proud of. yup. > I have a number of hwmon patches in my local kernel tree which I wrote > and that have been reviewed by a trusted developer, or that have been > posted to the lm-sensors list and that I have reviewed. I consider > these ready to go upstream. I plan to gather these into a public tree > and push them to Linus today or tomorrow. In the future, I will > probably have such a tree available to be included in linux-next. > > Don't get me wrong, I am _not_ volunteering to become the new hwmon > subsystem maintainer. Remember, I've been there before and you know how > it ended. But in the absence of a subsystem maintainer, I don't want > hwmon patches to be lost (and especially not mine) and I don't think > that pushing everything to Andrew is a good solution either. So I'm > just proposing to do my part of the work. But if Andrew really prefers > to pick all the patches, I am not insisting either. That would be great, thanks. But it does mean that I'd prefer that any hwmon patches which I pick up are merged via that tree if that's OK. Which all does end up making you look awfully like an hwmon maintainer.. > In the future, I would like to suggest to have 2 hwmon subsystem > maintainers instead of 1. Apparently none of us has the time to do all > the work, but maybe some of us would have the time to do half of it. > This is the path I took for the i2c subsystem, and while the change is > still fairly recent, it seems to be working well enough. Sure. Having additional people reviewing, testing and generally caring for changes has practically zero downside.
