From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from smtp1.linuxfoundation.org (smtp1.linux-foundation.org [172.17.192.35]) by mail.linuxfoundation.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 258BD13C5 for ; Fri, 14 Jun 2019 15:23:09 +0000 (UTC) Received: from bedivere.hansenpartnership.com (bedivere.hansenpartnership.com [66.63.167.143]) by smtp1.linuxfoundation.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id A137C174 for ; Fri, 14 Jun 2019 15:23:08 +0000 (UTC) Message-ID: <1560525785.27102.16.camel@HansenPartnership.com> From: James Bottomley To: Mauro Carvalho Chehab , Greg KH Date: Fri, 14 Jun 2019 08:23:05 -0700 In-Reply-To: <20190614121137.02b8a6dc@coco.lan> References: <1559836116.15946.27.camel@HansenPartnership.com> <20190606155846.GA31044@kroah.com> <1559838275.3144.6.camel@HansenPartnership.com> <20190613105916.66d03adf@coco.lan> <20190614101222.GA4797@pendragon.ideasonboard.com> <20190614102424.3fc40f04@coco.lan> <20190614135807.GA6573@kroah.com> <20190614121137.02b8a6dc@coco.lan> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Cc: media-submaintainers@linuxtv.org, ksummit-discuss@lists.linuxfoundation.org Subject: Re: [Ksummit-discuss] [MAINTAINERS SUMMIT] Pull network and Patch Acceptance Consistency List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , On Fri, 2019-06-14 at 12:11 -0300, Mauro Carvalho Chehab wrote: [...] > If you think this is relevant to a broader audience, let me reply > with a long answer about that. I prepared it and intended to reply to > our internal media maintainer's ML (added as c/c). > > Yet, I still think that this is media maintainer's dirty laundry > and should be discussed elsewhere ;-) > > --- So trying not to get into huge email thread, I think this is the key point: [...] > Currently, I review all accepted patches. This means you effectively have a fully flat tree. Even if you use git, you're using it like an email transmission path. One of the points I was making about deepening the tree is that the maintainer in the middle should trust the submaintainer they pull from, so there should be no need to review all the patches because of that trust. This is how deepening the tree helps to offload maintainers because review is one of the biggest burdens we have and deepening the tree is a way to share it. Without trust, we achieve no offloading and therefore no utility from deepening the tree. So, to get back to the original question, which was *should* we deepen the tree: why don't you feel you can let branches with patches you haven't reviewed into your tree? I've characterised it as a trust issue above, but perhaps it isn't. I think this is a key question which would help us understand whether a deeper tree model is at all possible. James