About the V9fs-developer list (Was: [PATCH] 9p: fix multiple

About the V9fs-developer list (Was: [PATCH] 9p: fix multiple

[Dominique Martinet]

NULL-pointer-dereferences)
Reply-To: 
In-Reply-To: <5B5BBFCE.50002@huawei.com>


(Re-added Eric, ron, Latchesar to the recipients and removed a few
others to make v9fs accept this mail without moderation, sorry Thomas &
others)


TL;DR: should we move the list, and should I send a patch adding myself
to maintainers?


piaojun wrote on Sat, Jul 28, 2018:
> I could not recieve the original patch. Did the patch CC v9fs developer
> maillist?

Yes, but as usual there were too many recipients (I removed some like
you did previously), so the patch is probably queued for moderation
somewhere.

For this specific patch, you can find the original message here from the
lkml archives:
http://lkml.kernel.org/r/20180727110558.5479-1-tomasbortoli@gmail.com


(Or more generally for patches I say I've accepted, my current process
is to push them to my 9p-test branch[1] then once they have been tested
push the same thing to my 9p-next branch[2] that will be taken into
linux-next; this is already in 9p-next now :
https://github.com/martinetd/linux/commit/49fd386d1e67d7876770d46b57359c6891d4cb70

[1] https://github.com/martinetd/linux/commits/9p-test
[2] https://github.com/martinetd/linux/commits/9p-next

I always check that linux-kernel@vger was in copy and insert the Link:
tag as appropriate if you need to reply)




In general though I'd realy like to bring up the subject of this mailing
list as I feel it's been a burden lately.
I'm not even an admin of the list so I feel a little out of place here
but should I go around snooping to ask if we could make a new
v9fs@vger.kernel.org mailing list and abandon the ship here?

A second question that's been on my mind lately is if I'm going to be
gathering 9p patchs from now I should probably start considering sending
a patch to add myself to MAINTAINER.

I've had a quick look at the file though and there aren't many
subsystems with 4+ maintainer (breakdown if I can count: 1301 with 1,
342 with 2, 104 with 3, 31 with 4, 4 with 5, 1 with 6 and 10
maintainers) and more to the point I also think having too many
maintainers is a nuisance, which is why I've been reluctant to add
myself.

I however don't want to forcefully remove anyone either, Eric has been
somewhat active with three messages in may at least, and Latchesar akced
patchs this past year as well (September but still within 12 months) so
he's definitely still reading these emails a bit...
That being said, it's not like retiring from maintainers means one won't
be able to look and comment at patches, just that patches will get less
recipients and might go to through to the list more easily.

To be honest I wouldn't care at all if the list worked well, but in the
state things are in it's easy for me to miss a patch unless someone
redirects it to me like Greg did recently.

There isn't any hurry, but let's discuss this and move forward.


What do you three think about this?
What do others think?

Thanks!
-- 
Dominique Martinet

Re: About the V9fs-developer list (Was: [PATCH] 9p: fix multiple

[piaojun]

Hi,

Could we cancel the limitation of recipients' number?

Thanks,
Jun

On 2018/7/28 13:59, Dominique Martinet wrote:
> NULL-pointer-dereferences)
> Reply-To: 
> In-Reply-To: <5B5BBFCE.50002@huawei.com>
> 
> 
> (Re-added Eric, ron, Latchesar to the recipients and removed a few
> others to make v9fs accept this mail without moderation, sorry Thomas &
> others)
> 
> 
> TL;DR: should we move the list, and should I send a patch adding myself
> to maintainers?
> 
> 
> piaojun wrote on Sat, Jul 28, 2018:
>> I could not recieve the original patch. Did the patch CC v9fs developer
>> maillist?
> 
> Yes, but as usual there were too many recipients (I removed some like
> you did previously), so the patch is probably queued for moderation
> somewhere.
> 
> For this specific patch, you can find the original message here from the
> lkml archives:
> http://lkml.kernel.org/r/20180727110558.5479-1-tomasbortoli@gmail.com
> 
> 
> (Or more generally for patches I say I've accepted, my current process
> is to push them to my 9p-test branch[1] then once they have been tested
> push the same thing to my 9p-next branch[2] that will be taken into
> linux-next; this is already in 9p-next now :
> https://github.com/martinetd/linux/commit/49fd386d1e67d7876770d46b57359c6891d4cb70
> 
> [1] https://github.com/martinetd/linux/commits/9p-test
> [2] https://github.com/martinetd/linux/commits/9p-next
> 
> I always check that linux-kernel@vger was in copy and insert the Link:
> tag as appropriate if you need to reply)
> 
> 
> 
> 
> In general though I'd realy like to bring up the subject of this mailing
> list as I feel it's been a burden lately.
> I'm not even an admin of the list so I feel a little out of place here
> but should I go around snooping to ask if we could make a new
> v9fs@vger.kernel.org mailing list and abandon the ship here?
> 
> A second question that's been on my mind lately is if I'm going to be
> gathering 9p patchs from now I should probably start considering sending
> a patch to add myself to MAINTAINER.
> 
> I've had a quick look at the file though and there aren't many
> subsystems with 4+ maintainer (breakdown if I can count: 1301 with 1,
> 342 with 2, 104 with 3, 31 with 4, 4 with 5, 1 with 6 and 10
> maintainers) and more to the point I also think having too many
> maintainers is a nuisance, which is why I've been reluctant to add
> myself.
> 
> I however don't want to forcefully remove anyone either, Eric has been
> somewhat active with three messages in may at least, and Latchesar akced
> patchs this past year as well (September but still within 12 months) so
> he's definitely still reading these emails a bit...
> That being said, it's not like retiring from maintainers means one won't
> be able to look and comment at patches, just that patches will get less
> recipients and might go to through to the list more easily.
> 
> To be honest I wouldn't care at all if the list worked well, but in the
> state things are in it's easy for me to miss a patch unless someone
> redirects it to me like Greg did recently.
> 
> There isn't any hurry, but let's discuss this and move forward.
> 
> 
> What do you three think about this?
> What do others think?
> 
> Thanks!
> 

Re: About the V9fs-developer list (Was: [PATCH] 9p: fix multiple

[Dominique Martinet]

piaojun wrote on Sat, Jul 28, 2018:
> Could we cancel the limitation of recipients' number?

I think it's hard-coded by source-forge...
I'm not list admin for v9fs-developer but we've had problems with
another sf list on another project and the options are fairly limited
from what I can recall...

And sourceforge is currently down so no way to check right now!

-- 
Dominique Martinet

Re: [V9fs-developer] About the V9fs-developer list (Was: [PATCH] 9p: fix multiple

[Dominique Martinet]

Dominique Martinet wrote on Sat, Jul 28, 2018:
> piaojun wrote on Sat, Jul 28, 2018:
> > Could we cancel the limitation of recipients' number?
> 
> I think it's hard-coded by source-forge...
> I'm not list admin for v9fs-developer but we've had problems with
> another sf list on another project and the options are fairly limited
> from what I can recall...

I've got the list password from Eric (thanks!) and had a look.

It's actually more open than I remembered, in particular I have found
this maximum number of recipients setting and have lifted the limit.


You probably noticed I've also accepted a bunch of messages just now,
sorry for the spam if these were messages you had already seen, but
let's look forward to a more active list ;)

-- 
Dominique

Re: [V9fs-developer] About the V9fs-developer list (Was: [PATCH] 9p: fix multiple

[piaojun]

On 2018/8/3 6:28, Dominique Martinet wrote:
> Dominique Martinet wrote on Sat, Jul 28, 2018:
>> piaojun wrote on Sat, Jul 28, 2018:
>>> Could we cancel the limitation of recipients' number?
>>
>> I think it's hard-coded by source-forge...
>> I'm not list admin for v9fs-developer but we've had problems with
>> another sf list on another project and the options are fairly limited
>> from what I can recall...
> 
> I've got the list password from Eric (thanks!) and had a look.
> 
> It's actually more open than I remembered, in particular I have found
> this maximum number of recipients setting and have lifted the limit.
> 
> 
> You probably noticed I've also accepted a bunch of messages just now,
> sorry for the spam if these were messages you had already seen, but
> let's look forward to a more active list ;)
> 
Good news!