From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Tom Rini Date: Sun, 14 Sep 2014 12:46:56 -0400 Subject: [U-Boot] u-boot-socfpga repository In-Reply-To: <5415BC00.6090407@opensource.altera.com> References: <20140911171431.GW25506@bill-the-cat> <54122DE5.1080006@opensource.altera.com> <20140912052527.B0714382307@gemini.denx.de> <54133B22.2090509@opensource.altera.com> <20140912194616.7270238222C@gemini.denx.de> <54136276.6040109@opensource.altera.com> <20140912221446.F010F38222C@gemini.denx.de> <541373AD.4020902@opensource.altera.com> <20140912225149.21EF438222C@gemini.denx.de> <5415BC00.6090407@opensource.altera.com> Message-ID: <20140914164656.GC25506@bill-the-cat> List-Id: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit To: u-boot@lists.denx.de On Sun, Sep 14, 2014 at 11:02:08AM -0500, Dinh Nguyen wrote: > Hi Wolfgang, > > On 9/12/14, 5:51 PM, Wolfgang Denk wrote: > > Dear Dinh, > > > > In message <541373AD.4020902@opensource.altera.com> you wrote: > >> > >> Then I vote for myself as the custodian for u-boot-socfpga. By the way, > > > > May I ask what made you change your mind like that? First you wrote > > that Vince was assigned to to that, and now it's suddenly you? As far > > as I can see, you have not participated in any SoCPGA related code > > reviews or discussions in 2014 at all, so what would be the > > difference? > > Touche... > > > > >> what is the difference between a Maintainer and a custodian? I don't > >> understand why if Chin-Liang and myself are listed as Maintainer(s) for > >> SOCFPGA, we would have to rely on Marek to pull in our patches for SOCFPGA? > > > > A maintainer is someone who developed some piece of code and feels > > responsible for it - who is available as contact person for questions, > > or who will be asked to fix any bugs in that code. > > > > A Custodian is "one that guards and protects or maintains" [1], i. e. > > he is responsible for maintaining the design principles of U-Boot and > > the code quality even for code he did not work on himself, and for > > patches submitted by others. This is a job that carries a much higher > > responsibility than just maintaining your own code. He will interface > > to the actual maintainers of the respective code, negotiatiate > > solutions and decide in case of conflicts. > > > > [1] http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/custodian > > > >> Yes, this is the repo will be the one that we will use. I have a couple > >> of other things on my plate at the moment and will populate this repo > >> shortly. > > > > Thats great, as it means you will not lose any efforts when we start > > with u-boot-socfpga now, as you then can start with synchronized > > repositories right from the beginning. > > FWIW, I strongly oppose assigning an external person to be the custodian > for socfpga. Marek is fantastic developer, and my only issue is that he > is not an Altera employee. I contend that an in-house custodian for > socfpga is the best choice. I know that my voice carries little weight > here, but I would, at least, think I have Altera's best interest in mind > here. I don't think it's a bad thing for the custodian for a given SoC to be an employee of the vendor as they're likely to have more insight into how things really work and be able to get questions answered about how/why a magic bit needs to be set. > Also, I went back and look at the "flurry" of patches for socfpga, and I > must commend Tom Rini on a fantastic job for applying the patches. I was > only able to find 1 patch that needed addressing: > > [socfpga: generic board for socfpga] from Pavel Machek Can you test it, and Reviewed-by/Acked-by/Tested-by or something the patch? patchwork collects these and that is a big part of our review and merge process here. > For now, I have it applied to > > git://git.rocketboards.org/u-boot-socfpga-next.git for_next branch. Here's a difference from the Linux kernel community. We really do want to use a git tree hosted on git.denx.de for pulls. > There are a few patches that needs to be addressed in the mailing list, > but I don't see any other patches that needs to be applied at this > moment. Please correct me if I'm wrong. > > To summarize, have we failed as maintainers of socfpga that you would > need to assign somebody else to be the custodian for socfpga? If > so, I apologize and would like for you to reconsider your position and > let us try to do a better job. Just like in the kernel community, it's a position that has to be earned. I understand there should be big round of patches posted soon, which will be a good place to see follow-through. There's also the denali NAND patches which are blocking another SoC from going in as well which I'm hoping to see v10 of posted sometime in the coming week. -- Tom -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: not available Type: application/pgp-signature Size: 836 bytes Desc: Digital signature URL: