Hi folks, I think I'm not the right person to reply this discussion because am still on the road of how to cooperate with others in open source community, as well as I have not made much contribution to XFS until now. However, I'd to show some humble opinions from a user and a trivial developer's point of view. First all all, that's fine if we have a co-maintainer who can take the role when Ben is on leave or busy working on other things, and also, this role may be able to supply more help to some new comers for patch review, coaching, etc... I felt Mark has already paid a lot of effort and performed very well in this role. At least, I got several offline emails form Mark with the patch review status and comments, which are all helpful to me. Secondly, I want to show respect and admiration to our core developers who are devote themselves to promote XFS in the past years. Without those talent guys, I think XFS can not move ahead rapidly with so much significant performance improvements and new features. However, how can we credit them for their prominent achievements(i.e, show honor)? As mentioned above, I have no deep knowledge about the community rule, but I found out there are several projects are maintained with more than 2 maintainers, e.g, XEN hypervisor interface, VEM subsystem, a few projects even have 4 maintainers, e.g, TMP driver. So I was wonder why we can not have more maintainers given that XFS code base become more and more large(more than one hundred thousand lines via simple `wc -l` though we have much code comments). I really felt frustrated from Dave's:"Quite frankly, XFS upstream is completely dysfunctional right now and, as such, it's no longer a fun thing to work on.", as Dave had made lots of contributions and going crazy hacking. I wrote this just because I love this project, I still remember/appreciate Christoph gave me a quick response to my first email in XFS two years ago, so that I can start to learn kernel hacking from then on. Thanks, -Jeff On 11/08/2013 10:23 AM, Ric Wheeler wrote: > Hi Ben, > > How exactly did we decide to add a new co-maintainer? Shouldn't we have > some discussion on the list and see some substantial history of > contributions? > > Best regards, > > Ric > > > On 11/07/2013 05:08 PM, Mark Tinguely wrote: >> Updated maintainer info. >> >> Signed-off-by: Ben Myers <bpm@xxxxxxx> >> Reviewed-by: Mark Tinguely <tinguely@xxxxxxx> >> --- >> MAINTAINERS | 2 +- >> 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-) >> >> Index: b/MAINTAINERS >> =================================================================== >> --- a/MAINTAINERS 2013-11-07 15:42:04.554561805 -0600 >> +++ b/MAINTAINERS 2013-11-07 15:42:59.034889770 -0600 >> @@ -9388,7 +9388,7 @@ F: drivers/xen/*swiotlb* >> XFS FILESYSTEM >> P: Silicon Graphics Inc >> M: Ben Myers <bpm@xxxxxxx> >> -M: Alex Elder <elder@xxxxxxxxxx> >> +M: Mark Tinguely <tinguely@xxxxxxx> >> M: xfs@xxxxxxxxxxx >> L: xfs@xxxxxxxxxxx >> W: http://oss.sgi.com/projects/xfs >> >> _______________________________________________ >> xfs mailing list >> xfs@xxxxxxxxxxx >> http://oss.sgi.com/mailman/listinfo/xfs > > _______________________________________________ > xfs mailing list > xfs@xxxxxxxxxxx > http://oss.sgi.com/mailman/listinfo/xfs _______________________________________________ xfs mailing list xfs@xxxxxxxxxxx http://oss.sgi.com/mailman/listinfo/xfs
