On Fri, Nov 08, 2013 at 02:46:06PM -0600, Ben Myers wrote: > That really didn't happen Christoph. It's not in my tree or in a pull request. I'll take my back room complain back then, but I still think that this is not a useful way to discuss something like this. > 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. I'd really like to see more diversity in XFS maintainers. The SGI focus has defintively been an issue again and again because it seems when one SGI person is too busy the others usually are as well. As mentioned before there's also been historically a way too high turnover, with the associated transition pains. By making sure we have a broader base for the maintainers, and a more open infrastructure we'll all win. Note that we already had that sort of instructure on kernel.org, but gave up on it because many people perceived the effort to re-gain the kernel.org accounts to high. I would also really like to get a clarification on "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". What specific people are you worried about an what code? What makes "the RH people" less worthy to their code in than "the SGI" people. _______________________________________________ xfs mailing list xfs@xxxxxxxxxxx http://oss.sgi.com/mailman/listinfo/xfs
