Hey Dave, On Mon, Nov 11, 2013 at 10:12:41AM +1100, Dave Chinner wrote: > On Sat, Nov 09, 2013 at 06:30:49PM -0600, Ben Myers wrote: > > On Sat, Nov 09, 2013 at 05:51:30PM -0600, Ben Myers wrote: > > > On Sat, Nov 09, 2013 at 10:44:24AM +1100, NeilBrown wrote: > > > > On Sat, 9 Nov 2013 06:59:00 +0800 Zhi Yong Wu <zwu.kernel@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > > > > On Sat, Nov 9, 2013 at 6:03 AM, Ben Myers <bpm@xxxxxxx> wrote: > > > > > > 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 > > Yup, and my take on the role of a Maintainer is here: > > http://oss.sgi.com/archives/xfs/2013-08/msg00633.html > > > > > > > P: Silicon Graphics Inc > > > > > > +M: Dave Chinner <dchinner@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> > > I flattered by this, but there is a reason I've resisted taking this > position for a long time. Mainly for the reasons already mentioned: > > > > > Indeed. And does he even want the job? I heard Linus say in a recent > > > > interview that being a maintainer is a $#!+ job. > > > > > > I've found that it can be a little bit stressful sometimes and it tends to > > > crowd out feature work, so I guess I agree with him. It turns out to be an > > > excellent weight loss plan. > > which are all true, but I'm already pulling most patches off the > list, applying them to my own trees, testing them and reviewing > them. Hence juggling them into a stable, non-rebasing git tree > branch on a server somewhere isn't a huge amount of extra work... > > > > > Is it really best for the > > > > most active developers to be burdened with that extra work? > > > > > > > > (hmm.. maybe I should add Dave to the Cc here .. but no-one else did so best > > > > leave him alone to code in peace). > > > > > > Dave, what do you want to do here? Which email? What sort of arrangement? I > > > gather that you probably do want the job, and I know you'll be fantastic. Do > > > you want to do it all yourself? Maybe split it up? > > > > I should have also suggested that we can add you to this file and just keep our > > existing arrangements. That seems appropriate to me, befitting of your > > achievements, the work you've been doing, and I'm willing to keep on as I am. > > OK, I've read the thread and had a think about it. My thoughts are > as follows.... > > I'm not interested in being a co-maintainer in name only or only as > a backup to only be used when Ben goes on holidays. > > Co-maintainer means SGI is giving me all the access and admin rights > needed to commit and maintain git trees on oss.sgi.com (including > creating new trees) at any time, at any point in a release cycle, > etc. i.e. I can do anything that Ben can currently do on > oss.sgi.com from XFS POV... > > Co-maintainer is not a kernel-tree only deal. It's for everything > XFS related: kernel code, xfsprogs, xfstests and xfsdump. > > Co-maintainer does not mean "Dave does everything". Yes, I can do a > lot of the heavy lifting, but I'm very happy for Ben to continue > committing patches he reviews and handling userspace releases and > pushing stuff to Linus and so on. There's some logistics we need to > work out here so we aren't going to step on each other's toes, but > there's no unsolvable issues here. > > Co-maintainer is not a role I will perform with a Red Hat on. I will > review and sign off on anything in my co-maintainer role as > "david@xxxxxxxxxxxxx". Hence I hope to be able to maintain a clear > distinction between the duties I perform on behalf of the community > and code that I write on Red Hat's behalf. > > Lastly, being a maintainer doesn't solve the problem of review > latency of the code I write. I'm hoping that everyone understands > that maintainers are still dependent on the receiving help from the > community they serve to get their own work done. > > Ben, let's talk more about the logistics of this offline first > before making anything official.... Sounds good. I'm AFK on Monday, so I'll ping you later in the week and we can get together. ;) Regards, Ben _______________________________________________ xfs mailing list xfs@xxxxxxxxxxx http://oss.sgi.com/mailman/listinfo/xfs
