* Missing feedback @ 2020-05-22 10:13 Uwe Kleine-König 2020-05-22 11:46 ` Thierry Reding 0 siblings, 1 reply; 5+ messages in thread From: Uwe Kleine-König @ 2020-05-22 10:13 UTC (permalink / raw) To: Thierry Reding; +Cc: linux-pwm, kernel Hello Thierry, there is again quite a backlog of missing pwm feedback and missing care for patchwork. Patchwork has several iterations of a few patch series where the old series should be marked as superseeded. If you want you can give me write access there, then I can go through the list and mark patches accordingly. (I'm user "ukleinek" on patchwork.ozlabs.org.) Patches/mails where I'd like to see feedback (or just application) from you include: - "Convert PWM period and duty cycle to u64" series (v14, feedback) - pwm: sun4i: direct clock output support for Allwinner A64 (v2, application) - pwm: imx27: Fix rounding behavior - docs: pwm: rework documentation for the framework - adding linux-pwm archives to lore.kernel.org? but I feel the backlog on the list is much bigger. In the past I did less review on the list myself, partly because I consider it frustrating to invest time and then still have patches lying around without application/feedback. I think getting patchwork more up to date would already help considerably, but in the long run I can also imagine taking care for patch application and sending pull requests if this helps. Best regards Uwe -- Pengutronix e.K. | Uwe Kleine-König | Industrial Linux Solutions | https://www.pengutronix.de/ | ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 5+ messages in thread
* Re: Missing feedback 2020-05-22 10:13 Missing feedback Uwe Kleine-König @ 2020-05-22 11:46 ` Thierry Reding 2020-05-22 13:15 ` Uwe Kleine-König 0 siblings, 1 reply; 5+ messages in thread From: Thierry Reding @ 2020-05-22 11:46 UTC (permalink / raw) To: Uwe Kleine-König; +Cc: linux-pwm, kernel [-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 5025 bytes --] On Fri, May 22, 2020 at 12:13:55PM +0200, Uwe Kleine-König wrote: > Hello Thierry, > > there is again quite a backlog of missing pwm feedback and missing care > for patchwork. > > Patchwork has several iterations of a few patch series where the old > series should be marked as superseeded. If you want you can give me > write access there, then I can go through the list and mark patches > accordingly. (I'm user "ukleinek" on patchwork.ozlabs.org.) > > Patches/mails where I'd like to see feedback (or just application) from > you include: > > - "Convert PWM period and duty cycle to u64" series (v14, feedback) > - pwm: sun4i: direct clock output support for Allwinner A64 (v2, > application) > - pwm: imx27: Fix rounding behavior > - docs: pwm: rework documentation for the framework > - adding linux-pwm archives to lore.kernel.org? > > but I feel the backlog on the list is much bigger. > > In the past I did less review on the list myself, partly because I > consider it frustrating to invest time and then still have patches lying > around without application/feedback. To be honest, I've been feeling this way for a number of years now. PWM isn't exactly very "hot" and it's difficult to get much of a reaction from anyone. You do get a reaction when you apply patches that nobody's been willing to review or test and then they end up breaking things and people only notice when they're updating their product kernels to a new version and by that time it's becoming really difficult to fix things. On top of that I've been having trouble finding any time to spend on PWM maintenance because in addition to a fulltime job (which doesn't include PWM work) now I have two kids that need to be homeschooled. This may or may not get better in the weeks or months ahead. Now, don't get me wrong because I know there are plenty of other people that are struggling with the situation, so I know this is difficult for everyone. Just saying how things are for me and why I can barely find any time to spend on PWM. The lack of participation isn't very uncommon for subsystems such as PWM and I've seen other subsystem maintainers voice the same frustrations over the years. I'm not sure what a good solution to this is. Some have tried a group maintainership model with some success, at other times it might just be time for someone else to take over. To be honest, I have occasionally considered just abandonning PWM and let somebody else take over. Until recently this wasn't really an option because there was nobody else showing any interest and doing an okay job of it seemed like a better idea than orphaning and letting someone else with already too much work handle the patches. It's not like the review situation would improve that way either. > I think getting patchwork more up to date would already help > considerably, but in the long run I can also imagine taking care for > patch application and sending pull requests if this helps. I very much appreciate your help on reviewing patches. At the same time, even while you certainly have shown an interest in the PWM subsystem for a while, if you're already frustrated by the lack of progress, even though that may be partially my own fault, I'm not convinced the subsystem is going to be in much better hands if I were to leave it all to you. It sometimes may seem like a trivial job, but it's also very frustrating because people really only tend to get mad at you for any number of reasons. People take it for granted that you will be there to support them and offer little to no support in return. They will also sometimes completely overwhelm you with patches and won't even let you review patches before they send out new versions. What they don't realize is that that actually doesn't improve the situation because it keeps adding to your maintainer work queue. You mention patchwork, and while it's a great tool, having to go through it and mark all of those patch series that you haven't even looked at as "superseeded" is tedious work and takes away precious time that you can't use to actually do review. Anyway, I don't want to discourage you or anything, just want to give you a fair warning about the differences of being a contributor/reviewer and a maintainer. If you're really serious about being more active, do you have any concrete suggestions on what would help? Should we maybe start by giving you access to patchwork so that you can mark patches and keep it in a better state? Another option might be for us to share patch application, though that's honestly the least time-consuming part. Once patches are reviewed and ready, it's easy for me to apply and push out a new tree, so it's not like sharing the workload would be much help. Like I said, I'm open to let you take on a more central role eventually, but I'm going to need a bit more time to convince myself that you will be doing a better job than I. Thierry [-- Attachment #2: signature.asc --] [-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 833 bytes --] ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 5+ messages in thread
* Re: Missing feedback 2020-05-22 11:46 ` Thierry Reding @ 2020-05-22 13:15 ` Uwe Kleine-König 2020-05-22 15:21 ` Thierry Reding 0 siblings, 1 reply; 5+ messages in thread From: Uwe Kleine-König @ 2020-05-22 13:15 UTC (permalink / raw) To: Thierry Reding; +Cc: linux-pwm, kernel Hello Thierry, On Fri, May 22, 2020 at 01:46:35PM +0200, Thierry Reding wrote: > Like I said, I'm open to let you take on a more central role eventually, > but I'm going to need a bit more time to convince myself that you will > be doing a better job than I. I'm also unsure that I can do better than you (and additionally that I can be better in your subjective view given that we don't agree on every aspect). Also note I don't want to replace you, for some questions I don't feel competent to judge. My goal is just to widen the bottle neck. As a sensible step I think getting my hands on patchwork and cleanup up there would be a good thing. This would help me seeing what is actually still open and also help other interested parties to see the current situation. I agree that working with patchwork is tedious, but as soon as there is not only a single person who can keep everything in main memory some form of such a coordination is useful and important. Best regards Uwe -- Pengutronix e.K. | Uwe Kleine-König | Industrial Linux Solutions | https://www.pengutronix.de/ | ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 5+ messages in thread
* Re: Missing feedback 2020-05-22 13:15 ` Uwe Kleine-König @ 2020-05-22 15:21 ` Thierry Reding 2020-05-22 17:33 ` Uwe Kleine-König 0 siblings, 1 reply; 5+ messages in thread From: Thierry Reding @ 2020-05-22 15:21 UTC (permalink / raw) To: Uwe Kleine-König; +Cc: linux-pwm, kernel [-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1873 bytes --] On Fri, May 22, 2020 at 03:15:12PM +0200, Uwe Kleine-König wrote: > Hello Thierry, > > On Fri, May 22, 2020 at 01:46:35PM +0200, Thierry Reding wrote: > > Like I said, I'm open to let you take on a more central role eventually, > > but I'm going to need a bit more time to convince myself that you will > > be doing a better job than I. > > I'm also unsure that I can do better than you (and additionally that I > can be better in your subjective view given that we don't agree on every > aspect). Also note I don't want to replace you, for some questions I > don't feel competent to judge. My goal is just to widen the bottle neck. > > As a sensible step I think getting my hands on patchwork and cleanup up > there would be a good thing. This would help me seeing what is actually > still open and also help other interested parties to see the current > situation. > > I agree that working with patchwork is tedious, but as soon as there is > not only a single person who can keep everything in main memory some > form of such a coordination is useful and important. Okay, let's start there then. Do you have an account on patchwork.ozlabs.org? If so, let me know and I can get the admins to add you as maintainer to the project. I do also have half-finished scripts somewhere to help with patchwork maintenance. It might be worth resurrecting them and see if they can be made more useful. One thing I've been meaning to add is some semi- automated way of marking patches as superseeded/changes-requested. Or automatically sending "Applied" replies and marking the patches "accepted". I think that would go a long way of removing the tediousness because you only have to work with patches and not worry about keeping both the maintainer tree and patchwork in sync, and it avoids the need to send out automatic emails. Thierry [-- Attachment #2: signature.asc --] [-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 833 bytes --] ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 5+ messages in thread
* Re: Missing feedback 2020-05-22 15:21 ` Thierry Reding @ 2020-05-22 17:33 ` Uwe Kleine-König 0 siblings, 0 replies; 5+ messages in thread From: Uwe Kleine-König @ 2020-05-22 17:33 UTC (permalink / raw) To: Thierry Reding; +Cc: linux-pwm, kernel Hello Thierry, On Fri, May 22, 2020 at 05:21:33PM +0200, Thierry Reding wrote: > On Fri, May 22, 2020 at 03:15:12PM +0200, Uwe Kleine-König wrote: > > I agree that working with patchwork is tedious, but as soon as there is > > not only a single person who can keep everything in main memory some > > form of such a coordination is useful and important. > > Okay, let's start there then. Do you have an account on > patchwork.ozlabs.org? If so, let me know and I can get the admins to add > you as maintainer to the project. I'm ukleinek there. > I do also have half-finished scripts somewhere to help with patchwork > maintenance. It might be worth resurrecting them and see if they can be > made more useful. One thing I've been meaning to add is some semi- > automated way of marking patches as superseeded/changes-requested. Or > automatically sending "Applied" replies and marking the patches > "accepted". I think for "accepted" mails it would be helpful to add the Message-Id to the commit logs as it usual already for some subsystems. I have "looking into b4 + public-inbox" somewhere on my todo list for that. Best regards Uwe -- Pengutronix e.K. | Uwe Kleine-König | Industrial Linux Solutions | https://www.pengutronix.de/ | ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 5+ messages in thread
end of thread, other threads:[~2020-05-22 17:33 UTC | newest] Thread overview: 5+ messages (download: mbox.gz / follow: Atom feed) -- links below jump to the message on this page -- 2020-05-22 10:13 Missing feedback Uwe Kleine-König 2020-05-22 11:46 ` Thierry Reding 2020-05-22 13:15 ` Uwe Kleine-König 2020-05-22 15:21 ` Thierry Reding 2020-05-22 17:33 ` Uwe Kleine-König
This is an external index of several public inboxes, see mirroring instructions on how to clone and mirror all data and code used by this external index.