Re: [Ksummit-discuss] [MAINTAINERS SUMMIT] Pull network and Patch Acceptance Consistency

[Laurent Pinchart <laurent.pinchart@ideasonboard.com>]

Hi Mauro,

On Fri, Jun 14, 2019 at 10:24:24AM -0300, Mauro Carvalho Chehab wrote:
> Em Fri, 14 Jun 2019 13:12:22 +0300 Laurent Pinchart escreveu:
> > On Thu, Jun 13, 2019 at 10:59:16AM -0300, Mauro Carvalho Chehab wrote:
> >> Em Thu, 06 Jun 2019 19:24:35 +0300 James Bottomley escreveu:
> >>   
> >>> [splitting issues to shorten replies]
> >>> On Thu, 2019-06-06 at 17:58 +0200, Greg KH wrote:  
> >>>> On Thu, Jun 06, 2019 at 06:48:36PM +0300, James Bottomley wrote:    
> >>>>> This is probably best done as two separate topics
> >>>>> 
> >>>>> 1) Pull network: The pull depth is effectively how many pulls your
> >>>>> tree does before it goes to Linus, so pull depth 0 is sent straight
> >>>>> to Linus, pull depth 1 is sent to a maintainer who sends to Linus
> >>>>> and so on.  We've previously spent time discussing how increasing
> >>>>> the pull depth of the network would reduce the amount of time Linus
> >>>>> spends handling pull requests.  However, in the areas I play, like
> >>>>> security, we seem to be moving in the opposite direction
> >>>>> (encouraging people to go from pull depth 1 to pull depth 0).  If
> >>>>> we're deciding to move to a flat tree model, where everything is
> >>>>> depth 0, that's fine, I just think we could do with making a formal
> >>>>> decision on it so we don't waste energy encouraging greater tree
> >>>>> depth.    
> >>>> 
> >>>> That depth "change" was due to the perceived problems that having a
> >>>> deeper pull depth was causing.  To sort that out, Linus asked for
> >>>> things to go directly to him.    
> >>> 
> >>> This seems to go beyond problems with one tree and is becoming a trend.
> >>>   
> >>>> It seems like the real issue is the problem with that subsystem
> >>>> collection point, and the fact that the depth changed is a sign that
> >>>> our model works well (i.e. everyone can be routed around.)    
> >>> 
> >>> I'm not really interested in calling out "problem" maintainers, or
> >>> indeed having another "my patch collection method is better than yours"
> >>> type discussion.  What I was fishing for is whether the general
> >>> impression that greater tree depth is worth striving for is actually
> >>> correct, or we should all give up now and simply accept that the
> >>> current flat tree is the best we can do, and, indeed is the model that
> >>> works best for Linus.  I get the impression this may be the case, but I
> >>> think making sure by having an actual discussion among the interested
> >>> parties who will be at the kernel summit, would be useful.  
> >> 
> >> On media, we came from a "depth 1" model, moving toward a "depth 2" level: 
> >> 
> >> patch author -> media/driver maintainer -> subsystem maintainer -> Linus  
> > 
> > I'd like to use this opportunity to ask again for pull requests to be
> > pulled instead of cherry-picked.
> 
> There are other forums for discussing internal media maintainership,
> like the weekly meetings we have and our own mailing lists.

Is this really an internal matter ? If the pull network depths
increases, which is the topic of this e-mail thread, I think it's
important to decide on how pull requests should be handled along the
pull chain. This becomes even more important for pull requests that
target multiple subsystems (this affects V4L2 and DRM, but not only) to
avoid conflicts, but is also a topic worth discussing from a testing and
stability point of view (cherry-picking instead of merging a branch
voids, to some extent, the tests performed by the submitter on their
original branch).

-- 
Regards,

Laurent Pinchart