On 11/08/2013 05:03 PM, Ben Myers wrote:
Hey Ric,
On Fri, Nov 08, 2013 at 03:50:21PM -0500, Ric Wheeler wrote:
On 11/08/2013 03:46 PM, Ben Myers wrote:
Hey Christoph,
On Fri, Nov 08, 2013 at 11:34:24AM -0800, Christoph Hellwig wrote:
On Fri, Nov 08, 2013 at 12:03:37PM -0600, Ben Myers wrote:
Mark is replacing Alex as my backup because Alex is really busy at
Linaro and asked to be taken off awhile ago. The holiday season is
coming up and I fully intend to go off my meds, turn in to Fonzy the
bear, and eat my hat. I need someone to watch the shop while I'm off
exploring on Mars. I trust Mark to do that because he is totally
awesome.
Doing this as an unilateral decisions is not something that will win you
a fan base.
It's posted for review.
While we never had anything reassembling a democracy in Linux Kernel
development making decisions without even contacting the major
contributor is wrong, twice so if the maintainer is a relatively minor
contributor to start with.
Just because it recent came up elsewhere I'd like to recite the
definition from Trond here again:
http://lists.linux-foundation.org/pipermail/ksummit-2012-discuss/2012-June/000066.html
By many of the creative roles enlisted there it's clear that Dave should
be the maintainer. He's been the main contributor and chief architect
for XFS for many year, while the maintainers came and went at the mercy
of SGI. This is not meant to bad mouth either of you as I think you're
doing a reasonably good job compared to other maintainers, but at the
same time the direction is set by other people that have a much longer
involvement with the project, and having them officially in control
would help us forward a lot. It would also avoid having to spend
considerable resources to train every new generation of SGI maintainer.
Coming to and end I would like to maintain Dave Chinner as the primary
XFS maintainer for all the work he has done as biggest contributor and
architect of XFS since longer than I can remember, and I would love to
retain Ben Myers as a co-maintainer for all the good work he has done
maintaining and reviewing patches since November 2011.
I think we're doing a decent job too. So thanks for that much at least. ;)
I would also like to use this post as a public venue to condemn the
unilateral smokey backroom decisions about XFS maintainership that SGI is
trying to enforce on the community.
That really didn't happen Christoph. It's not in my tree or in a pull request.
Linus, let me know what you want to do. I do think we're doing a fair job over
here, and (geez) I'm just trying to add Mark as my backup since Alex is too
busy. I know the RH people want more control, and that's understandable, but
they really don't need to replace me to get their code in. Ouch.
Thanks,
Ben
Christoph is not a Red Hat person.
Jeff is from Oracle.
This is not a Red Hat vs SGI thing,
Sorry if my read on that was wrong.
I do appreciate the work and effort you and the SGI team put in but think that
this will be a good way to keep the community happier and even more productive
going forward.
Dave simply has earned the right
to take on the formal leadership role of maintainer.
Then we're gonna need some Reviewed-bys. ;)
Those should come from the developers, thanks!
Ric
From: Ben Myers <bpm@xxxxxxx>
xfs: update maintainers
Add Dave as maintainer of XFS.
Signed-off-by: Ben Myers <bpm@xxxxxxx>
---
MAINTAINERS | 2 +-
1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-)
Index: b/MAINTAINERS
===================================================================
--- a/MAINTAINERS 2013-11-08 15:20:18.935186245 -0600
+++ b/MAINTAINERS 2013-11-08 15:22:50.685245977 -0600
@@ -9387,8 +9387,8 @@ F: drivers/xen/*swiotlb*
XFS FILESYSTEM
P: Silicon Graphics Inc
+M: Dave Chinner <dchinner@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
M: Ben Myers <bpm@xxxxxxx>
-M: Alex Elder <elder@xxxxxxxxxx>
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
