* xfs: update maintainers file
@ 2013-11-07 22:02 Ben Myers
2013-11-07 22:08 ` Mark Tinguely
0 siblings, 1 reply; 60+ messages in thread
From: Ben Myers @ 2013-11-07 22:02 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: xfs, tinguely, elder
Updated maintainer info.
Signed-off-by: Ben Myers <bpm@sgi.com>
---
MAINTAINERS | 2 +-
1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-)
Index: b/MAINTAINERS
===================================================================
--- a/MAINTAINERS 2013-11-07 15:42:04.554561805 -0600
+++ b/MAINTAINERS 2013-11-07 15:42:59.034889770 -0600
@@ -9388,7 +9388,7 @@ F: drivers/xen/*swiotlb*
XFS FILESYSTEM
P: Silicon Graphics Inc
M: Ben Myers <bpm@sgi.com>
-M: Alex Elder <elder@kernel.org>
+M: Mark Tinguely <tinguely@sgi.com>
M: xfs@oss.sgi.com
L: xfs@oss.sgi.com
W: http://oss.sgi.com/projects/xfs
_______________________________________________
xfs mailing list
xfs@oss.sgi.com
http://oss.sgi.com/mailman/listinfo/xfs
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 60+ messages in thread
* Re: xfs: update maintainers file
2013-11-07 22:02 xfs: update maintainers file Ben Myers
@ 2013-11-07 22:08 ` Mark Tinguely
2013-11-07 22:32 ` [PATCH v2] " Ben Myers
2013-11-08 2:23 ` xfs: " Ric Wheeler
0 siblings, 2 replies; 60+ messages in thread
From: Mark Tinguely @ 2013-11-07 22:08 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Ben Myers; +Cc: elder, xfs
Updated maintainer info.
Signed-off-by: Ben Myers <bpm@sgi.com>
Reviewed-by: Mark Tinguely <tinguely@sgi.com>
---
MAINTAINERS | 2 +-
1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-)
Index: b/MAINTAINERS
===================================================================
--- a/MAINTAINERS 2013-11-07 15:42:04.554561805 -0600
+++ b/MAINTAINERS 2013-11-07 15:42:59.034889770 -0600
@@ -9388,7 +9388,7 @@ F: drivers/xen/*swiotlb*
XFS FILESYSTEM
P: Silicon Graphics Inc
M: Ben Myers <bpm@sgi.com>
-M: Alex Elder <elder@kernel.org>
+M: Mark Tinguely <tinguely@sgi.com>
M: xfs@oss.sgi.com
L: xfs@oss.sgi.com
W: http://oss.sgi.com/projects/xfs
_______________________________________________
xfs mailing list
xfs@oss.sgi.com
http://oss.sgi.com/mailman/listinfo/xfs
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 60+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v2] update maintainers file
2013-11-07 22:08 ` Mark Tinguely
@ 2013-11-07 22:32 ` Ben Myers
2013-11-07 23:18 ` Alex Elder
2013-11-08 2:23 ` xfs: " Ric Wheeler
1 sibling, 1 reply; 60+ messages in thread
From: Ben Myers @ 2013-11-07 22:32 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Mark Tinguely; +Cc: elder, xfs
Awhile back Alex reminded me to remove his entry from the MAINTAINERS
file, as he was my backup. Now Mark has this role in case I go off my
meds or something, and Alex will no longer get spammed with XFS patches.
Signed-off-by: Ben Myers <bpm@sgi.com>
---
[v2: meaningful commit message, as suggested by Eric]
MAINTAINERS | 2 +-
1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-)
Index: b/MAINTAINERS
===================================================================
--- a/MAINTAINERS 2013-11-07 15:42:04.554561805 -0600
+++ b/MAINTAINERS 2013-11-07 15:42:59.034889770 -0600
@@ -9388,7 +9388,7 @@ F: drivers/xen/*swiotlb*
XFS FILESYSTEM
P: Silicon Graphics Inc
M: Ben Myers <bpm@sgi.com>
-M: Alex Elder <elder@kernel.org>
+M: Mark Tinguely <tinguely@sgi.com>
M: xfs@oss.sgi.com
L: xfs@oss.sgi.com
W: http://oss.sgi.com/projects/xfs
_______________________________________________
xfs mailing list
xfs@oss.sgi.com
http://oss.sgi.com/mailman/listinfo/xfs
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 60+ messages in thread
* Re: [PATCH v2] update maintainers file
2013-11-07 22:32 ` [PATCH v2] " Ben Myers
@ 2013-11-07 23:18 ` Alex Elder
0 siblings, 0 replies; 60+ messages in thread
From: Alex Elder @ 2013-11-07 23:18 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Ben Myers, Mark Tinguely; +Cc: elder, xfs
On 11/07/2013 04:32 PM, Ben Myers wrote:
> Awhile back Alex reminded me to remove his entry from the MAINTAINERS
> file, as he was my backup. Now Mark has this role in case I go off my
> meds or something, and Alex will no longer get spammed with XFS patches.
>
> Signed-off-by: Ben Myers <bpm@sgi.com>
Reviewed-by: Alex Elder <elder@linaro.org>
> ---
> [v2: meaningful commit message, as suggested by Eric]
>
> MAINTAINERS | 2 +-
> 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-)
>
> Index: b/MAINTAINERS
> ===================================================================
> --- a/MAINTAINERS 2013-11-07 15:42:04.554561805 -0600
> +++ b/MAINTAINERS 2013-11-07 15:42:59.034889770 -0600
> @@ -9388,7 +9388,7 @@ F: drivers/xen/*swiotlb*
> XFS FILESYSTEM
> P: Silicon Graphics Inc
> M: Ben Myers <bpm@sgi.com>
> -M: Alex Elder <elder@kernel.org>
> +M: Mark Tinguely <tinguely@sgi.com>
> M: xfs@oss.sgi.com
> L: xfs@oss.sgi.com
> W: http://oss.sgi.com/projects/xfs
>
> _______________________________________________
> xfs mailing list
> xfs@oss.sgi.com
> http://oss.sgi.com/mailman/listinfo/xfs
>
_______________________________________________
xfs mailing list
xfs@oss.sgi.com
http://oss.sgi.com/mailman/listinfo/xfs
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 60+ messages in thread
* Re: xfs: update maintainers file
2013-11-07 22:08 ` Mark Tinguely
2013-11-07 22:32 ` [PATCH v2] " Ben Myers
@ 2013-11-08 2:23 ` Ric Wheeler
2013-11-08 2:30 ` Zhi Yong Wu
` (2 more replies)
1 sibling, 3 replies; 60+ messages in thread
From: Ric Wheeler @ 2013-11-08 2:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Mark Tinguely, Ben Myers; +Cc: elder, Linus Torvalds, xfs
Hi Ben,
How exactly did we decide to add a new co-maintainer? Shouldn't we have some
discussion on the list and see some substantial history of contributions?
Best regards,
Ric
On 11/07/2013 05:08 PM, Mark Tinguely wrote:
> Updated maintainer info.
>
> Signed-off-by: Ben Myers <bpm@sgi.com>
> Reviewed-by: Mark Tinguely <tinguely@sgi.com>
> ---
> MAINTAINERS | 2 +-
> 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-)
>
> Index: b/MAINTAINERS
> ===================================================================
> --- a/MAINTAINERS 2013-11-07 15:42:04.554561805 -0600
> +++ b/MAINTAINERS 2013-11-07 15:42:59.034889770 -0600
> @@ -9388,7 +9388,7 @@ F: drivers/xen/*swiotlb*
> XFS FILESYSTEM
> P: Silicon Graphics Inc
> M: Ben Myers <bpm@sgi.com>
> -M: Alex Elder <elder@kernel.org>
> +M: Mark Tinguely <tinguely@sgi.com>
> M: xfs@oss.sgi.com
> L: xfs@oss.sgi.com
> W: http://oss.sgi.com/projects/xfs
>
> _______________________________________________
> xfs mailing list
> xfs@oss.sgi.com
> http://oss.sgi.com/mailman/listinfo/xfs
_______________________________________________
xfs mailing list
xfs@oss.sgi.com
http://oss.sgi.com/mailman/listinfo/xfs
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 60+ messages in thread
* Re: xfs: update maintainers file
2013-11-08 2:23 ` xfs: " Ric Wheeler
@ 2013-11-08 2:30 ` Zhi Yong Wu
2013-11-08 5:24 ` Jeff Liu
2013-11-08 11:03 ` Ric Wheeler
2 siblings, 0 replies; 60+ messages in thread
From: Zhi Yong Wu @ 2013-11-08 2:30 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Ric Wheeler; +Cc: elder, Mark Tinguely, xfstests, Ben Myers, Linus Torvalds
+1,
We should take the contribution of some core developers and their
willingness into account, not only the benefit of some company.
On Fri, Nov 8, 2013 at 10:23 AM, Ric Wheeler <rwheeler@redhat.com> wrote:
> Hi Ben,
>
> How exactly did we decide to add a new co-maintainer? Shouldn't we have some
> discussion on the list and see some substantial history of contributions?
>
> Best regards,
>
> Ric
>
>
>
> On 11/07/2013 05:08 PM, Mark Tinguely wrote:
>>
>> Updated maintainer info.
>>
>> Signed-off-by: Ben Myers <bpm@sgi.com>
>> Reviewed-by: Mark Tinguely <tinguely@sgi.com>
>> ---
>> MAINTAINERS | 2 +-
>> 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-)
>>
>> Index: b/MAINTAINERS
>> ===================================================================
>> --- a/MAINTAINERS 2013-11-07 15:42:04.554561805 -0600
>> +++ b/MAINTAINERS 2013-11-07 15:42:59.034889770 -0600
>> @@ -9388,7 +9388,7 @@ F: drivers/xen/*swiotlb*
>> XFS FILESYSTEM
>> P: Silicon Graphics Inc
>> M: Ben Myers <bpm@sgi.com>
>> -M: Alex Elder <elder@kernel.org>
>> +M: Mark Tinguely <tinguely@sgi.com>
>> M: xfs@oss.sgi.com
>> L: xfs@oss.sgi.com
>> W: http://oss.sgi.com/projects/xfs
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> xfs mailing list
>> xfs@oss.sgi.com
>> http://oss.sgi.com/mailman/listinfo/xfs
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> xfs mailing list
> xfs@oss.sgi.com
> http://oss.sgi.com/mailman/listinfo/xfs
--
Regards,
Zhi Yong Wu
_______________________________________________
xfs mailing list
xfs@oss.sgi.com
http://oss.sgi.com/mailman/listinfo/xfs
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 60+ messages in thread
* Re: xfs: update maintainers file
2013-11-08 2:23 ` xfs: " Ric Wheeler
2013-11-08 2:30 ` Zhi Yong Wu
@ 2013-11-08 5:24 ` Jeff Liu
2013-11-08 11:03 ` Ric Wheeler
2 siblings, 0 replies; 60+ messages in thread
From: Jeff Liu @ 2013-11-08 5:24 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Ric Wheeler; +Cc: Ben Myers, elder, Linus Torvalds, Mark Tinguely, xfs
Hi folks,
I think I'm not the right person to reply this discussion because am still on the road
of how to cooperate with others in open source community, as well as I have not made
much contribution to XFS until now.
However, I'd to show some humble opinions from a user and a trivial developer's point
of view.
First all all, that's fine if we have a co-maintainer who can take the role when Ben
is on leave or busy working on other things, and also, this role may be able to supply
more help to some new comers for patch review, coaching, etc... I felt Mark has already
paid a lot of effort and performed very well in this role. At least, I got several
offline emails form Mark with the patch review status and comments, which are all helpful
to me.
Secondly, I want to show respect and admiration to our core developers who are devote
themselves to promote XFS in the past years. Without those talent guys, I think XFS can
not move ahead rapidly with so much significant performance improvements and new features.
However, how can we credit them for their prominent achievements(i.e, show honor)?
As mentioned above, I have no deep knowledge about the community rule, but I found out
there are several projects are maintained with more than 2 maintainers, e.g, XEN hypervisor
interface, VEM subsystem, a few projects even have 4 maintainers, e.g, TMP driver.
So I was wonder why we can not have more maintainers given that XFS code base become more
and more large(more than one hundred thousand lines via simple `wc -l` though we have much
code comments).
I really felt frustrated from Dave's:"Quite frankly, XFS upstream is completely dysfunctional
right now and, as such, it's no longer a fun thing to work on.", as Dave had made lots of
contributions and going crazy hacking.
I wrote this just because I love this project, I still remember/appreciate Christoph gave me
a quick response to my first email in XFS two years ago, so that I can start to learn kernel
hacking from then on.
Thanks,
-Jeff
On 11/08/2013 10:23 AM, Ric Wheeler wrote:
> Hi Ben,
>
> How exactly did we decide to add a new co-maintainer? Shouldn't we have
> some discussion on the list and see some substantial history of
> contributions?
>
> Best regards,
>
> Ric
>
>
> On 11/07/2013 05:08 PM, Mark Tinguely wrote:
>> Updated maintainer info.
>>
>> Signed-off-by: Ben Myers <bpm@sgi.com>
>> Reviewed-by: Mark Tinguely <tinguely@sgi.com>
>> ---
>> MAINTAINERS | 2 +-
>> 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-)
>>
>> Index: b/MAINTAINERS
>> ===================================================================
>> --- a/MAINTAINERS 2013-11-07 15:42:04.554561805 -0600
>> +++ b/MAINTAINERS 2013-11-07 15:42:59.034889770 -0600
>> @@ -9388,7 +9388,7 @@ F: drivers/xen/*swiotlb*
>> XFS FILESYSTEM
>> P: Silicon Graphics Inc
>> M: Ben Myers <bpm@sgi.com>
>> -M: Alex Elder <elder@kernel.org>
>> +M: Mark Tinguely <tinguely@sgi.com>
>> M: xfs@oss.sgi.com
>> L: xfs@oss.sgi.com
>> W: http://oss.sgi.com/projects/xfs
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> xfs mailing list
>> xfs@oss.sgi.com
>> http://oss.sgi.com/mailman/listinfo/xfs
>
> _______________________________________________
> xfs mailing list
> xfs@oss.sgi.com
> http://oss.sgi.com/mailman/listinfo/xfs
_______________________________________________
xfs mailing list
xfs@oss.sgi.com
http://oss.sgi.com/mailman/listinfo/xfs
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 60+ messages in thread
* XFS leadership and a new co-maintainer candidate
2013-11-08 2:23 ` xfs: " Ric Wheeler
@ 2013-11-08 11:03 ` Ric Wheeler
2013-11-08 5:24 ` Jeff Liu
2013-11-08 11:03 ` Ric Wheeler
2 siblings, 0 replies; 60+ messages in thread
From: Ric Wheeler @ 2013-11-08 11:03 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Ric Wheeler, Mark Tinguely, Ben Myers
Cc: elder, Linus Torvalds, xfs, linux-kernel, Christoph Hellwig
In the XFS community, we have 2 clear leaders in terms of contributions of
significant feaures and depth of knowledge - Christoph and Dave.
If you look at the number of patches submitted by developers since 3.0 who have
more than 10 patches, we get the following:
319 Author: Dave Chinner <dchinner@redhat.com>
163 Author: Christoph Hellwig <hch@infradead.org>
51 Author: Christoph Hellwig <hch@lst.de>
35 Author: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@linux-foundation.org>
34 Author: Chandra Seetharaman <sekharan@us.ibm.com>
29 Author: Al Viro <viro@zeniv.linux.org.uk>
28 Author: Brian Foster <bfoster@redhat.com>
25 Author: Zhi Yong Wu <wuzhy@linux.vnet.ibm.com>
24 Author: Jeff Liu <jeff.liu@oracle.com>
21 Author: Jie Liu <jeff.liu@oracle.com>
20 Author: Mark Tinguely <tinguely@sgi.com>
16 Author: Dave Chinner <david@fromorbit.com>
12 Author: Eric Sandeen <sandeen@redhat.com>
12 Author: Carlos Maiolino <cmaiolino@redhat.com>
If we as a community had more capacity for patch review, Dave's numbers would
have jumped up even higher :)
It is certainly very welcome to bring new developers into our community, but if
we are going to add a co-maintainer for XFS, we really need to have one of our
two leading developers in that role.
Best regards,
Ric
On 11/07/2013 09:23 PM, Ric Wheeler wrote:
> Hi Ben,
>
> How exactly did we decide to add a new co-maintainer? Shouldn't we have some
> discussion on the list and see some substantial history of contributions?
>
> Best regards,
>
> Ric
>
>
> On 11/07/2013 05:08 PM, Mark Tinguely wrote:
>> Updated maintainer info.
>>
>> Signed-off-by: Ben Myers <bpm@sgi.com>
>> Reviewed-by: Mark Tinguely <tinguely@sgi.com>
>> ---
>> MAINTAINERS | 2 +-
>> 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-)
>>
>> Index: b/MAINTAINERS
>> ===================================================================
>> --- a/MAINTAINERS 2013-11-07 15:42:04.554561805 -0600
>> +++ b/MAINTAINERS 2013-11-07 15:42:59.034889770 -0600
>> @@ -9388,7 +9388,7 @@ F: drivers/xen/*swiotlb*
>> XFS FILESYSTEM
>> P: Silicon Graphics Inc
>> M: Ben Myers <bpm@sgi.com>
>> -M: Alex Elder <elder@kernel.org>
>> +M: Mark Tinguely <tinguely@sgi.com>
>> M: xfs@oss.sgi.com
>> L: xfs@oss.sgi.com
>> W: http://oss.sgi.com/projects/xfs
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> xfs mailing list
>> xfs@oss.sgi.com
>> http://oss.sgi.com/mailman/listinfo/xfs
>
> _______________________________________________
> xfs mailing list
> xfs@oss.sgi.com
> http://oss.sgi.com/mailman/listinfo/xfs
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 60+ messages in thread
* XFS leadership and a new co-maintainer candidate
@ 2013-11-08 11:03 ` Ric Wheeler
0 siblings, 0 replies; 60+ messages in thread
From: Ric Wheeler @ 2013-11-08 11:03 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Ric Wheeler, Mark Tinguely, Ben Myers
Cc: Christoph Hellwig, elder, Linus Torvalds, linux-kernel, xfs
In the XFS community, we have 2 clear leaders in terms of contributions of
significant feaures and depth of knowledge - Christoph and Dave.
If you look at the number of patches submitted by developers since 3.0 who have
more than 10 patches, we get the following:
319 Author: Dave Chinner <dchinner@redhat.com>
163 Author: Christoph Hellwig <hch@infradead.org>
51 Author: Christoph Hellwig <hch@lst.de>
35 Author: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@linux-foundation.org>
34 Author: Chandra Seetharaman <sekharan@us.ibm.com>
29 Author: Al Viro <viro@zeniv.linux.org.uk>
28 Author: Brian Foster <bfoster@redhat.com>
25 Author: Zhi Yong Wu <wuzhy@linux.vnet.ibm.com>
24 Author: Jeff Liu <jeff.liu@oracle.com>
21 Author: Jie Liu <jeff.liu@oracle.com>
20 Author: Mark Tinguely <tinguely@sgi.com>
16 Author: Dave Chinner <david@fromorbit.com>
12 Author: Eric Sandeen <sandeen@redhat.com>
12 Author: Carlos Maiolino <cmaiolino@redhat.com>
If we as a community had more capacity for patch review, Dave's numbers would
have jumped up even higher :)
It is certainly very welcome to bring new developers into our community, but if
we are going to add a co-maintainer for XFS, we really need to have one of our
two leading developers in that role.
Best regards,
Ric
On 11/07/2013 09:23 PM, Ric Wheeler wrote:
> Hi Ben,
>
> How exactly did we decide to add a new co-maintainer? Shouldn't we have some
> discussion on the list and see some substantial history of contributions?
>
> Best regards,
>
> Ric
>
>
> On 11/07/2013 05:08 PM, Mark Tinguely wrote:
>> Updated maintainer info.
>>
>> Signed-off-by: Ben Myers <bpm@sgi.com>
>> Reviewed-by: Mark Tinguely <tinguely@sgi.com>
>> ---
>> MAINTAINERS | 2 +-
>> 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-)
>>
>> Index: b/MAINTAINERS
>> ===================================================================
>> --- a/MAINTAINERS 2013-11-07 15:42:04.554561805 -0600
>> +++ b/MAINTAINERS 2013-11-07 15:42:59.034889770 -0600
>> @@ -9388,7 +9388,7 @@ F: drivers/xen/*swiotlb*
>> XFS FILESYSTEM
>> P: Silicon Graphics Inc
>> M: Ben Myers <bpm@sgi.com>
>> -M: Alex Elder <elder@kernel.org>
>> +M: Mark Tinguely <tinguely@sgi.com>
>> M: xfs@oss.sgi.com
>> L: xfs@oss.sgi.com
>> W: http://oss.sgi.com/projects/xfs
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> xfs mailing list
>> xfs@oss.sgi.com
>> http://oss.sgi.com/mailman/listinfo/xfs
>
> _______________________________________________
> xfs mailing list
> xfs@oss.sgi.com
> http://oss.sgi.com/mailman/listinfo/xfs
_______________________________________________
xfs mailing list
xfs@oss.sgi.com
http://oss.sgi.com/mailman/listinfo/xfs
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 60+ messages in thread
* Re: XFS leadership and a new co-maintainer candidate
2013-11-08 11:03 ` Ric Wheeler
@ 2013-11-08 18:03 ` Ben Myers
-1 siblings, 0 replies; 60+ messages in thread
From: Ben Myers @ 2013-11-08 18:03 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Ric Wheeler
Cc: Mark Tinguely, elder, Linus Torvalds, xfs, linux-kernel,
Christoph Hellwig
Hey Ric,
On Fri, Nov 08, 2013 at 06:03:41AM -0500, Ric Wheeler wrote:
> In the XFS community, we have 2 clear leaders in terms of
> contributions of significant feaures and depth of knowledge -
> Christoph and Dave.
>
> If you look at the number of patches submitted by developers since
> 3.0 who have more than 10 patches, we get the following:
>
> 319 Author: Dave Chinner <dchinner@redhat.com>
> 163 Author: Christoph Hellwig <hch@infradead.org>
> 51 Author: Christoph Hellwig <hch@lst.de>
> 35 Author: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@linux-foundation.org>
> 34 Author: Chandra Seetharaman <sekharan@us.ibm.com>
> 29 Author: Al Viro <viro@zeniv.linux.org.uk>
> 28 Author: Brian Foster <bfoster@redhat.com>
> 25 Author: Zhi Yong Wu <wuzhy@linux.vnet.ibm.com>
> 24 Author: Jeff Liu <jeff.liu@oracle.com>
> 21 Author: Jie Liu <jeff.liu@oracle.com>
> 20 Author: Mark Tinguely <tinguely@sgi.com>
> 16 Author: Dave Chinner <david@fromorbit.com>
> 12 Author: Eric Sandeen <sandeen@redhat.com>
> 12 Author: Carlos Maiolino <cmaiolino@redhat.com>
>
> If we as a community had more capacity for patch review, Dave's
> numbers would have jumped up even higher :)
>
> It is certainly very welcome to bring new developers into our
> community, but if we are going to add a co-maintainer for XFS, we
> really need to have one of our two leading developers in that role.
Mark is replacing Alex as my backup because Alex is really busy at
Linaro and asked to be taken off awhile ago. The holiday season is
coming up and I fully intend to go off my meds, turn in to Fonzy the
bear, and eat my hat. I need someone to watch the shop while I'm off
exploring on Mars. I trust Mark to do that because he is totally
awesome.
-Ben
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 60+ messages in thread
* Re: XFS leadership and a new co-maintainer candidate
@ 2013-11-08 18:03 ` Ben Myers
0 siblings, 0 replies; 60+ messages in thread
From: Ben Myers @ 2013-11-08 18:03 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Ric Wheeler
Cc: elder, Mark Tinguely, linux-kernel, xfs, Christoph Hellwig,
Linus Torvalds
Hey Ric,
On Fri, Nov 08, 2013 at 06:03:41AM -0500, Ric Wheeler wrote:
> In the XFS community, we have 2 clear leaders in terms of
> contributions of significant feaures and depth of knowledge -
> Christoph and Dave.
>
> If you look at the number of patches submitted by developers since
> 3.0 who have more than 10 patches, we get the following:
>
> 319 Author: Dave Chinner <dchinner@redhat.com>
> 163 Author: Christoph Hellwig <hch@infradead.org>
> 51 Author: Christoph Hellwig <hch@lst.de>
> 35 Author: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@linux-foundation.org>
> 34 Author: Chandra Seetharaman <sekharan@us.ibm.com>
> 29 Author: Al Viro <viro@zeniv.linux.org.uk>
> 28 Author: Brian Foster <bfoster@redhat.com>
> 25 Author: Zhi Yong Wu <wuzhy@linux.vnet.ibm.com>
> 24 Author: Jeff Liu <jeff.liu@oracle.com>
> 21 Author: Jie Liu <jeff.liu@oracle.com>
> 20 Author: Mark Tinguely <tinguely@sgi.com>
> 16 Author: Dave Chinner <david@fromorbit.com>
> 12 Author: Eric Sandeen <sandeen@redhat.com>
> 12 Author: Carlos Maiolino <cmaiolino@redhat.com>
>
> If we as a community had more capacity for patch review, Dave's
> numbers would have jumped up even higher :)
>
> It is certainly very welcome to bring new developers into our
> community, but if we are going to add a co-maintainer for XFS, we
> really need to have one of our two leading developers in that role.
Mark is replacing Alex as my backup because Alex is really busy at
Linaro and asked to be taken off awhile ago. The holiday season is
coming up and I fully intend to go off my meds, turn in to Fonzy the
bear, and eat my hat. I need someone to watch the shop while I'm off
exploring on Mars. I trust Mark to do that because he is totally
awesome.
-Ben
_______________________________________________
xfs mailing list
xfs@oss.sgi.com
http://oss.sgi.com/mailman/listinfo/xfs
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 60+ messages in thread
* Re: XFS leadership and a new co-maintainer candidate
2013-11-08 18:03 ` Ben Myers
@ 2013-11-08 18:09 ` Ric Wheeler
-1 siblings, 0 replies; 60+ messages in thread
From: Ric Wheeler @ 2013-11-08 18:09 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Ben Myers
Cc: Mark Tinguely, elder, Linus Torvalds, xfs, linux-kernel,
Christoph Hellwig
On 11/08/2013 01:03 PM, Ben Myers wrote:
> Hey Ric,
>
> On Fri, Nov 08, 2013 at 06:03:41AM -0500, Ric Wheeler wrote:
>> In the XFS community, we have 2 clear leaders in terms of
>> contributions of significant feaures and depth of knowledge -
>> Christoph and Dave.
>>
>> If you look at the number of patches submitted by developers since
>> 3.0 who have more than 10 patches, we get the following:
>>
>> 319 Author: Dave Chinner <dchinner@redhat.com>
>> 163 Author: Christoph Hellwig <hch@infradead.org>
>> 51 Author: Christoph Hellwig <hch@lst.de>
>> 35 Author: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@linux-foundation.org>
>> 34 Author: Chandra Seetharaman <sekharan@us.ibm.com>
>> 29 Author: Al Viro <viro@zeniv.linux.org.uk>
>> 28 Author: Brian Foster <bfoster@redhat.com>
>> 25 Author: Zhi Yong Wu <wuzhy@linux.vnet.ibm.com>
>> 24 Author: Jeff Liu <jeff.liu@oracle.com>
>> 21 Author: Jie Liu <jeff.liu@oracle.com>
>> 20 Author: Mark Tinguely <tinguely@sgi.com>
>> 16 Author: Dave Chinner <david@fromorbit.com>
>> 12 Author: Eric Sandeen <sandeen@redhat.com>
>> 12 Author: Carlos Maiolino <cmaiolino@redhat.com>
>>
>> If we as a community had more capacity for patch review, Dave's
>> numbers would have jumped up even higher :)
>>
>> It is certainly very welcome to bring new developers into our
>> community, but if we are going to add a co-maintainer for XFS, we
>> really need to have one of our two leading developers in that role.
> Mark is replacing Alex as my backup because Alex is really busy at
> Linaro and asked to be taken off awhile ago. The holiday season is
> coming up and I fully intend to go off my meds, turn in to Fonzy the
> bear, and eat my hat. I need someone to watch the shop while I'm off
> exploring on Mars. I trust Mark to do that because he is totally
> awesome.
>
> -Ben
I don't mean any disrepect to you or to Mark, but maintainership is something
that you earn over time by proving yourself in the community as a developer and
a leader of the technology on a personal level.
It is not something that gets managed by the community of developers and has the
key role of keeping the most frequent developers engaged and happy. That has
not been working for us as a community lately.
Dave Chinner is the obvious person to take on the maintainer role as someone who
has an order of magnitude more code contributed than either of you (even combined).
Christoph, if he has time, would also be an excellent candidate.
Regards,
Ric
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 60+ messages in thread
* Re: XFS leadership and a new co-maintainer candidate
@ 2013-11-08 18:09 ` Ric Wheeler
0 siblings, 0 replies; 60+ messages in thread
From: Ric Wheeler @ 2013-11-08 18:09 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Ben Myers
Cc: elder, Mark Tinguely, linux-kernel, xfs, Christoph Hellwig,
Linus Torvalds
On 11/08/2013 01:03 PM, Ben Myers wrote:
> Hey Ric,
>
> On Fri, Nov 08, 2013 at 06:03:41AM -0500, Ric Wheeler wrote:
>> In the XFS community, we have 2 clear leaders in terms of
>> contributions of significant feaures and depth of knowledge -
>> Christoph and Dave.
>>
>> If you look at the number of patches submitted by developers since
>> 3.0 who have more than 10 patches, we get the following:
>>
>> 319 Author: Dave Chinner <dchinner@redhat.com>
>> 163 Author: Christoph Hellwig <hch@infradead.org>
>> 51 Author: Christoph Hellwig <hch@lst.de>
>> 35 Author: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@linux-foundation.org>
>> 34 Author: Chandra Seetharaman <sekharan@us.ibm.com>
>> 29 Author: Al Viro <viro@zeniv.linux.org.uk>
>> 28 Author: Brian Foster <bfoster@redhat.com>
>> 25 Author: Zhi Yong Wu <wuzhy@linux.vnet.ibm.com>
>> 24 Author: Jeff Liu <jeff.liu@oracle.com>
>> 21 Author: Jie Liu <jeff.liu@oracle.com>
>> 20 Author: Mark Tinguely <tinguely@sgi.com>
>> 16 Author: Dave Chinner <david@fromorbit.com>
>> 12 Author: Eric Sandeen <sandeen@redhat.com>
>> 12 Author: Carlos Maiolino <cmaiolino@redhat.com>
>>
>> If we as a community had more capacity for patch review, Dave's
>> numbers would have jumped up even higher :)
>>
>> It is certainly very welcome to bring new developers into our
>> community, but if we are going to add a co-maintainer for XFS, we
>> really need to have one of our two leading developers in that role.
> Mark is replacing Alex as my backup because Alex is really busy at
> Linaro and asked to be taken off awhile ago. The holiday season is
> coming up and I fully intend to go off my meds, turn in to Fonzy the
> bear, and eat my hat. I need someone to watch the shop while I'm off
> exploring on Mars. I trust Mark to do that because he is totally
> awesome.
>
> -Ben
I don't mean any disrepect to you or to Mark, but maintainership is something
that you earn over time by proving yourself in the community as a developer and
a leader of the technology on a personal level.
It is not something that gets managed by the community of developers and has the
key role of keeping the most frequent developers engaged and happy. That has
not been working for us as a community lately.
Dave Chinner is the obvious person to take on the maintainer role as someone who
has an order of magnitude more code contributed than either of you (even combined).
Christoph, if he has time, would also be an excellent candidate.
Regards,
Ric
_______________________________________________
xfs mailing list
xfs@oss.sgi.com
http://oss.sgi.com/mailman/listinfo/xfs
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 60+ messages in thread
* Re: XFS leadership and a new co-maintainer candidate
2013-11-08 18:03 ` Ben Myers
@ 2013-11-08 19:34 ` Christoph Hellwig
-1 siblings, 0 replies; 60+ messages in thread
From: Christoph Hellwig @ 2013-11-08 19:34 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Ben Myers
Cc: Ric Wheeler, elder, Mark Tinguely, linux-kernel, xfs,
Christoph Hellwig, Linus Torvalds
On Fri, Nov 08, 2013 at 12:03:37PM -0600, Ben Myers wrote:
> Mark is replacing Alex as my backup because Alex is really busy at
> Linaro and asked to be taken off awhile ago. The holiday season is
> coming up and I fully intend to go off my meds, turn in to Fonzy the
> bear, and eat my hat. I need someone to watch the shop while I'm off
> exploring on Mars. I trust Mark to do that because he is totally
> awesome.
Doing this as an unilateral decisions is not something that will win you
a fan base.
While we never had anything reassembling a democracy in Linux Kernel
development making decisions without even contacting the major
contributor is wrong, twice so if the maintainer is a relatively minor
contributor to start with.
Just because it recent came up elsewhere I'd like to recite the
definition from Trond here again:
http://lists.linux-foundation.org/pipermail/ksummit-2012-discuss/2012-June/000066.html
By many of the creative roles enlisted there it's clear that Dave should
be the maintainer. He's been the main contributor and chief architect
for XFS for many year, while the maintainers came and went at the mercy
of SGI. This is not meant to bad mouth either of you as I think you're
doing a reasonably good job compared to other maintainers, but at the
same time the direction is set by other people that have a much longer
involvement with the project, and having them officially in control
would help us forward a lot. It would also avoid having to spend
considerable resources to train every new generation of SGI maintainer.
Coming to and end I would like to maintain Dave Chinner as the primary
XFS maintainer for all the work he has done as biggest contributor and
architect of XFS since longer than I can remember, and I would love to
retain Ben Myers as a co-maintainer for all the good work he has done
maintaining and reviewing patches since November 2011.
I would also like to use this post as a public venue to condemn the
unilateral smokey backroom decisions about XFS maintainership that
SGI is trying to enforce on the community.
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 60+ messages in thread
* Re: XFS leadership and a new co-maintainer candidate
@ 2013-11-08 19:34 ` Christoph Hellwig
0 siblings, 0 replies; 60+ messages in thread
From: Christoph Hellwig @ 2013-11-08 19:34 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Ben Myers
Cc: elder, Mark Tinguely, Linus Torvalds, linux-kernel, xfs,
Christoph Hellwig, Ric Wheeler
On Fri, Nov 08, 2013 at 12:03:37PM -0600, Ben Myers wrote:
> Mark is replacing Alex as my backup because Alex is really busy at
> Linaro and asked to be taken off awhile ago. The holiday season is
> coming up and I fully intend to go off my meds, turn in to Fonzy the
> bear, and eat my hat. I need someone to watch the shop while I'm off
> exploring on Mars. I trust Mark to do that because he is totally
> awesome.
Doing this as an unilateral decisions is not something that will win you
a fan base.
While we never had anything reassembling a democracy in Linux Kernel
development making decisions without even contacting the major
contributor is wrong, twice so if the maintainer is a relatively minor
contributor to start with.
Just because it recent came up elsewhere I'd like to recite the
definition from Trond here again:
http://lists.linux-foundation.org/pipermail/ksummit-2012-discuss/2012-June/000066.html
By many of the creative roles enlisted there it's clear that Dave should
be the maintainer. He's been the main contributor and chief architect
for XFS for many year, while the maintainers came and went at the mercy
of SGI. This is not meant to bad mouth either of you as I think you're
doing a reasonably good job compared to other maintainers, but at the
same time the direction is set by other people that have a much longer
involvement with the project, and having them officially in control
would help us forward a lot. It would also avoid having to spend
considerable resources to train every new generation of SGI maintainer.
Coming to and end I would like to maintain Dave Chinner as the primary
XFS maintainer for all the work he has done as biggest contributor and
architect of XFS since longer than I can remember, and I would love to
retain Ben Myers as a co-maintainer for all the good work he has done
maintaining and reviewing patches since November 2011.
I would also like to use this post as a public venue to condemn the
unilateral smokey backroom decisions about XFS maintainership that
SGI is trying to enforce on the community.
_______________________________________________
xfs mailing list
xfs@oss.sgi.com
http://oss.sgi.com/mailman/listinfo/xfs
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 60+ messages in thread
* Re: XFS leadership and a new co-maintainer candidate
2013-11-08 18:09 ` Ric Wheeler
@ 2013-11-08 19:45 ` Ben Myers
-1 siblings, 0 replies; 60+ messages in thread
From: Ben Myers @ 2013-11-08 19:45 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Ric Wheeler
Cc: elder, Mark Tinguely, linux-kernel, xfs, Christoph Hellwig,
Linus Torvalds
Hey Ric,
On Fri, Nov 08, 2013 at 01:09:32PM -0500, Ric Wheeler wrote:
> On 11/08/2013 01:03 PM, Ben Myers wrote:
> >Hey Ric,
> >
> >On Fri, Nov 08, 2013 at 06:03:41AM -0500, Ric Wheeler wrote:
> >>In the XFS community, we have 2 clear leaders in terms of
> >>contributions of significant feaures and depth of knowledge -
> >>Christoph and Dave.
> >>
> >>If you look at the number of patches submitted by developers since
> >>3.0 who have more than 10 patches, we get the following:
> >>
> >> 319 Author: Dave Chinner <dchinner@redhat.com>
> >> 163 Author: Christoph Hellwig <hch@infradead.org>
> >> 51 Author: Christoph Hellwig <hch@lst.de>
> >> 35 Author: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@linux-foundation.org>
> >> 34 Author: Chandra Seetharaman <sekharan@us.ibm.com>
> >> 29 Author: Al Viro <viro@zeniv.linux.org.uk>
> >> 28 Author: Brian Foster <bfoster@redhat.com>
> >> 25 Author: Zhi Yong Wu <wuzhy@linux.vnet.ibm.com>
> >> 24 Author: Jeff Liu <jeff.liu@oracle.com>
> >> 21 Author: Jie Liu <jeff.liu@oracle.com>
> >> 20 Author: Mark Tinguely <tinguely@sgi.com>
> >> 16 Author: Dave Chinner <david@fromorbit.com>
> >> 12 Author: Eric Sandeen <sandeen@redhat.com>
> >> 12 Author: Carlos Maiolino <cmaiolino@redhat.com>
> >>
> >>If we as a community had more capacity for patch review, Dave's
> >>numbers would have jumped up even higher :)
> >>
> >>It is certainly very welcome to bring new developers into our
> >>community, but if we are going to add a co-maintainer for XFS, we
> >>really need to have one of our two leading developers in that role.
> >Mark is replacing Alex as my backup because Alex is really busy at
> >Linaro and asked to be taken off awhile ago. The holiday season is
> >coming up and I fully intend to go off my meds, turn in to Fonzy the
> >bear, and eat my hat. I need someone to watch the shop while I'm off
> >exploring on Mars. I trust Mark to do that because he is totally
> >awesome.
> >
> >-Ben
>
> I don't mean any disrepect to you or to Mark,
Don't worry about it, I have plenty to spare. ;P
> but maintainership is
> something that you earn over time by proving yourself in the
> community as a developer and a leader of the technology on a
> personal level.
>
> It is not something that gets managed by the community of developers
> and has the key role of keeping the most frequent developers engaged
> and happy. That has not been working for us as a community lately.
>
> Dave Chinner is the obvious person to take on the maintainer role as
> someone who has an order of magnitude more code contributed than
> either of you (even combined).
>
> Christoph, if he has time, would also be an excellent candidate.
Eric is also a good choice. I'd be happy to add all three.
-Ben
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 60+ messages in thread
* Re: XFS leadership and a new co-maintainer candidate
@ 2013-11-08 19:45 ` Ben Myers
0 siblings, 0 replies; 60+ messages in thread
From: Ben Myers @ 2013-11-08 19:45 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Ric Wheeler
Cc: elder, Mark Tinguely, linux-kernel, xfs, Christoph Hellwig,
Linus Torvalds
Hey Ric,
On Fri, Nov 08, 2013 at 01:09:32PM -0500, Ric Wheeler wrote:
> On 11/08/2013 01:03 PM, Ben Myers wrote:
> >Hey Ric,
> >
> >On Fri, Nov 08, 2013 at 06:03:41AM -0500, Ric Wheeler wrote:
> >>In the XFS community, we have 2 clear leaders in terms of
> >>contributions of significant feaures and depth of knowledge -
> >>Christoph and Dave.
> >>
> >>If you look at the number of patches submitted by developers since
> >>3.0 who have more than 10 patches, we get the following:
> >>
> >> 319 Author: Dave Chinner <dchinner@redhat.com>
> >> 163 Author: Christoph Hellwig <hch@infradead.org>
> >> 51 Author: Christoph Hellwig <hch@lst.de>
> >> 35 Author: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@linux-foundation.org>
> >> 34 Author: Chandra Seetharaman <sekharan@us.ibm.com>
> >> 29 Author: Al Viro <viro@zeniv.linux.org.uk>
> >> 28 Author: Brian Foster <bfoster@redhat.com>
> >> 25 Author: Zhi Yong Wu <wuzhy@linux.vnet.ibm.com>
> >> 24 Author: Jeff Liu <jeff.liu@oracle.com>
> >> 21 Author: Jie Liu <jeff.liu@oracle.com>
> >> 20 Author: Mark Tinguely <tinguely@sgi.com>
> >> 16 Author: Dave Chinner <david@fromorbit.com>
> >> 12 Author: Eric Sandeen <sandeen@redhat.com>
> >> 12 Author: Carlos Maiolino <cmaiolino@redhat.com>
> >>
> >>If we as a community had more capacity for patch review, Dave's
> >>numbers would have jumped up even higher :)
> >>
> >>It is certainly very welcome to bring new developers into our
> >>community, but if we are going to add a co-maintainer for XFS, we
> >>really need to have one of our two leading developers in that role.
> >Mark is replacing Alex as my backup because Alex is really busy at
> >Linaro and asked to be taken off awhile ago. The holiday season is
> >coming up and I fully intend to go off my meds, turn in to Fonzy the
> >bear, and eat my hat. I need someone to watch the shop while I'm off
> >exploring on Mars. I trust Mark to do that because he is totally
> >awesome.
> >
> >-Ben
>
> I don't mean any disrepect to you or to Mark,
Don't worry about it, I have plenty to spare. ;P
> but maintainership is
> something that you earn over time by proving yourself in the
> community as a developer and a leader of the technology on a
> personal level.
>
> It is not something that gets managed by the community of developers
> and has the key role of keeping the most frequent developers engaged
> and happy. That has not been working for us as a community lately.
>
> Dave Chinner is the obvious person to take on the maintainer role as
> someone who has an order of magnitude more code contributed than
> either of you (even combined).
>
> Christoph, if he has time, would also be an excellent candidate.
Eric is also a good choice. I'd be happy to add all three.
-Ben
_______________________________________________
xfs mailing list
xfs@oss.sgi.com
http://oss.sgi.com/mailman/listinfo/xfs
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 60+ messages in thread
* Re: XFS leadership and a new co-maintainer candidate
2013-11-08 19:34 ` Christoph Hellwig
@ 2013-11-08 20:32 ` Ric Wheeler
-1 siblings, 0 replies; 60+ messages in thread
From: Ric Wheeler @ 2013-11-08 20:32 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Christoph Hellwig, Ben Myers
Cc: elder, Mark Tinguely, Linus Torvalds, linux-kernel, xfs, Ric Wheeler
On 11/08/2013 02:34 PM, Christoph Hellwig wrote:
> On Fri, Nov 08, 2013 at 12:03:37PM -0600, Ben Myers wrote:
>> Mark is replacing Alex as my backup because Alex is really busy at
>> Linaro and asked to be taken off awhile ago. The holiday season is
>> coming up and I fully intend to go off my meds, turn in to Fonzy the
>> bear, and eat my hat. I need someone to watch the shop while I'm off
>> exploring on Mars. I trust Mark to do that because he is totally
>> awesome.
>
> Doing this as an unilateral decisions is not something that will win you
> a fan base.
>
> While we never had anything reassembling a democracy in Linux Kernel
> development making decisions without even contacting the major
> contributor is wrong, twice so if the maintainer is a relatively minor
> contributor to start with.
>
> Just because it recent came up elsewhere I'd like to recite the
> definition from Trond here again:
>
> http://lists.linux-foundation.org/pipermail/ksummit-2012-discuss/2012-June/000066.html
>
> By many of the creative roles enlisted there it's clear that Dave should
> be the maintainer. He's been the main contributor and chief architect
> for XFS for many year, while the maintainers came and went at the mercy
> of SGI. This is not meant to bad mouth either of you as I think you're
> doing a reasonably good job compared to other maintainers, but at the
> same time the direction is set by other people that have a much longer
> involvement with the project, and having them officially in control
> would help us forward a lot. It would also avoid having to spend
> considerable resources to train every new generation of SGI maintainer.
>
> Coming to and end I would like to maintain Dave Chinner as the primary
> XFS maintainer for all the work he has done as biggest contributor and
> architect of XFS since longer than I can remember, and I would love to
> retain Ben Myers as a co-maintainer for all the good work he has done
> maintaining and reviewing patches since November 2011.
This sounds like exactly the right thing to do to me as well,
Ric
>
> I would also like to use this post as a public venue to condemn the
> unilateral smokey backroom decisions about XFS maintainership that
> SGI is trying to enforce on the community.
>
>
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 60+ messages in thread
* Re: XFS leadership and a new co-maintainer candidate
@ 2013-11-08 20:32 ` Ric Wheeler
0 siblings, 0 replies; 60+ messages in thread
From: Ric Wheeler @ 2013-11-08 20:32 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Christoph Hellwig, Ben Myers
Cc: elder, Mark Tinguely, Linus Torvalds, linux-kernel, xfs, Ric Wheeler
On 11/08/2013 02:34 PM, Christoph Hellwig wrote:
> On Fri, Nov 08, 2013 at 12:03:37PM -0600, Ben Myers wrote:
>> Mark is replacing Alex as my backup because Alex is really busy at
>> Linaro and asked to be taken off awhile ago. The holiday season is
>> coming up and I fully intend to go off my meds, turn in to Fonzy the
>> bear, and eat my hat. I need someone to watch the shop while I'm off
>> exploring on Mars. I trust Mark to do that because he is totally
>> awesome.
>
> Doing this as an unilateral decisions is not something that will win you
> a fan base.
>
> While we never had anything reassembling a democracy in Linux Kernel
> development making decisions without even contacting the major
> contributor is wrong, twice so if the maintainer is a relatively minor
> contributor to start with.
>
> Just because it recent came up elsewhere I'd like to recite the
> definition from Trond here again:
>
> http://lists.linux-foundation.org/pipermail/ksummit-2012-discuss/2012-June/000066.html
>
> By many of the creative roles enlisted there it's clear that Dave should
> be the maintainer. He's been the main contributor and chief architect
> for XFS for many year, while the maintainers came and went at the mercy
> of SGI. This is not meant to bad mouth either of you as I think you're
> doing a reasonably good job compared to other maintainers, but at the
> same time the direction is set by other people that have a much longer
> involvement with the project, and having them officially in control
> would help us forward a lot. It would also avoid having to spend
> considerable resources to train every new generation of SGI maintainer.
>
> Coming to and end I would like to maintain Dave Chinner as the primary
> XFS maintainer for all the work he has done as biggest contributor and
> architect of XFS since longer than I can remember, and I would love to
> retain Ben Myers as a co-maintainer for all the good work he has done
> maintaining and reviewing patches since November 2011.
This sounds like exactly the right thing to do to me as well,
Ric
>
> I would also like to use this post as a public venue to condemn the
> unilateral smokey backroom decisions about XFS maintainership that
> SGI is trying to enforce on the community.
>
>
_______________________________________________
xfs mailing list
xfs@oss.sgi.com
http://oss.sgi.com/mailman/listinfo/xfs
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 60+ messages in thread
* Re: XFS leadership and a new co-maintainer candidate
2013-11-08 19:34 ` Christoph Hellwig
@ 2013-11-08 20:46 ` Ben Myers
-1 siblings, 0 replies; 60+ messages in thread
From: Ben Myers @ 2013-11-08 20:46 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Linus Torvalds
Cc: elder, Mark Tinguely, Christoph Hellwig, linux-kernel, xfs, Ric Wheeler
Hey Christoph,
On Fri, Nov 08, 2013 at 11:34:24AM -0800, Christoph Hellwig wrote:
> On Fri, Nov 08, 2013 at 12:03:37PM -0600, Ben Myers wrote:
> > Mark is replacing Alex as my backup because Alex is really busy at
> > Linaro and asked to be taken off awhile ago. The holiday season is
> > coming up and I fully intend to go off my meds, turn in to Fonzy the
> > bear, and eat my hat. I need someone to watch the shop while I'm off
> > exploring on Mars. I trust Mark to do that because he is totally
> > awesome.
>
>
> Doing this as an unilateral decisions is not something that will win you
> a fan base.
It's posted for review.
> While we never had anything reassembling a democracy in Linux Kernel
> development making decisions without even contacting the major
> contributor is wrong, twice so if the maintainer is a relatively minor
> contributor to start with.
>
> Just because it recent came up elsewhere I'd like to recite the
> definition from Trond here again:
>
> http://lists.linux-foundation.org/pipermail/ksummit-2012-discuss/2012-June/000066.html
>
> By many of the creative roles enlisted there it's clear that Dave should
> be the maintainer. He's been the main contributor and chief architect
> for XFS for many year, while the maintainers came and went at the mercy
> of SGI. This is not meant to bad mouth either of you as I think you're
> doing a reasonably good job compared to other maintainers, but at the
> same time the direction is set by other people that have a much longer
> involvement with the project, and having them officially in control
> would help us forward a lot. It would also avoid having to spend
> considerable resources to train every new generation of SGI maintainer.
>
> Coming to and end I would like to maintain Dave Chinner as the primary
> XFS maintainer for all the work he has done as biggest contributor and
> architect of XFS since longer than I can remember, and I would love to
> retain Ben Myers as a co-maintainer for all the good work he has done
> maintaining and reviewing patches since November 2011.
I think we're doing a decent job too. So thanks for that much at least. ;)
> I would also like to use this post as a public venue to condemn the
> unilateral smokey backroom decisions about XFS maintainership that SGI is
> trying to enforce on the community.
That really didn't happen Christoph. It's not in my tree or in a pull request.
Linus, let me know what you want to do. I do think we're doing a fair job over
here, and (geez) I'm just trying to add Mark as my backup since Alex is too
busy. I know the RH people want more control, and that's understandable, but
they really don't need to replace me to get their code in. Ouch.
Thanks,
Ben
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 60+ messages in thread
* Re: XFS leadership and a new co-maintainer candidate
@ 2013-11-08 20:46 ` Ben Myers
0 siblings, 0 replies; 60+ messages in thread
From: Ben Myers @ 2013-11-08 20:46 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Linus Torvalds
Cc: elder, Mark Tinguely, linux-kernel, xfs, Christoph Hellwig, Ric Wheeler
Hey Christoph,
On Fri, Nov 08, 2013 at 11:34:24AM -0800, Christoph Hellwig wrote:
> On Fri, Nov 08, 2013 at 12:03:37PM -0600, Ben Myers wrote:
> > Mark is replacing Alex as my backup because Alex is really busy at
> > Linaro and asked to be taken off awhile ago. The holiday season is
> > coming up and I fully intend to go off my meds, turn in to Fonzy the
> > bear, and eat my hat. I need someone to watch the shop while I'm off
> > exploring on Mars. I trust Mark to do that because he is totally
> > awesome.
>
>
> Doing this as an unilateral decisions is not something that will win you
> a fan base.
It's posted for review.
> While we never had anything reassembling a democracy in Linux Kernel
> development making decisions without even contacting the major
> contributor is wrong, twice so if the maintainer is a relatively minor
> contributor to start with.
>
> Just because it recent came up elsewhere I'd like to recite the
> definition from Trond here again:
>
> http://lists.linux-foundation.org/pipermail/ksummit-2012-discuss/2012-June/000066.html
>
> By many of the creative roles enlisted there it's clear that Dave should
> be the maintainer. He's been the main contributor and chief architect
> for XFS for many year, while the maintainers came and went at the mercy
> of SGI. This is not meant to bad mouth either of you as I think you're
> doing a reasonably good job compared to other maintainers, but at the
> same time the direction is set by other people that have a much longer
> involvement with the project, and having them officially in control
> would help us forward a lot. It would also avoid having to spend
> considerable resources to train every new generation of SGI maintainer.
>
> Coming to and end I would like to maintain Dave Chinner as the primary
> XFS maintainer for all the work he has done as biggest contributor and
> architect of XFS since longer than I can remember, and I would love to
> retain Ben Myers as a co-maintainer for all the good work he has done
> maintaining and reviewing patches since November 2011.
I think we're doing a decent job too. So thanks for that much at least. ;)
> I would also like to use this post as a public venue to condemn the
> unilateral smokey backroom decisions about XFS maintainership that SGI is
> trying to enforce on the community.
That really didn't happen Christoph. It's not in my tree or in a pull request.
Linus, let me know what you want to do. I do think we're doing a fair job over
here, and (geez) I'm just trying to add Mark as my backup since Alex is too
busy. I know the RH people want more control, and that's understandable, but
they really don't need to replace me to get their code in. Ouch.
Thanks,
Ben
_______________________________________________
xfs mailing list
xfs@oss.sgi.com
http://oss.sgi.com/mailman/listinfo/xfs
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 60+ messages in thread
* Re: XFS leadership and a new co-maintainer candidate
2013-11-08 20:46 ` Ben Myers
@ 2013-11-08 20:50 ` Ric Wheeler
-1 siblings, 0 replies; 60+ messages in thread
From: Ric Wheeler @ 2013-11-08 20:50 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Ben Myers, Linus Torvalds
Cc: elder, Mark Tinguely, Christoph Hellwig, linux-kernel, xfs
On 11/08/2013 03:46 PM, Ben Myers wrote:
> Hey Christoph,
>
> On Fri, Nov 08, 2013 at 11:34:24AM -0800, Christoph Hellwig wrote:
>> On Fri, Nov 08, 2013 at 12:03:37PM -0600, Ben Myers wrote:
>>> Mark is replacing Alex as my backup because Alex is really busy at
>>> Linaro and asked to be taken off awhile ago. The holiday season is
>>> coming up and I fully intend to go off my meds, turn in to Fonzy the
>>> bear, and eat my hat. I need someone to watch the shop while I'm off
>>> exploring on Mars. I trust Mark to do that because he is totally
>>> awesome.
>>
>> Doing this as an unilateral decisions is not something that will win you
>> a fan base.
> It's posted for review.
>
>> While we never had anything reassembling a democracy in Linux Kernel
>> development making decisions without even contacting the major
>> contributor is wrong, twice so if the maintainer is a relatively minor
>> contributor to start with.
>>
>> Just because it recent came up elsewhere I'd like to recite the
>> definition from Trond here again:
>>
>> http://lists.linux-foundation.org/pipermail/ksummit-2012-discuss/2012-June/000066.html
>>
>> By many of the creative roles enlisted there it's clear that Dave should
>> be the maintainer. He's been the main contributor and chief architect
>> for XFS for many year, while the maintainers came and went at the mercy
>> of SGI. This is not meant to bad mouth either of you as I think you're
>> doing a reasonably good job compared to other maintainers, but at the
>> same time the direction is set by other people that have a much longer
>> involvement with the project, and having them officially in control
>> would help us forward a lot. It would also avoid having to spend
>> considerable resources to train every new generation of SGI maintainer.
>>
>> Coming to and end I would like to maintain Dave Chinner as the primary
>> XFS maintainer for all the work he has done as biggest contributor and
>> architect of XFS since longer than I can remember, and I would love to
>> retain Ben Myers as a co-maintainer for all the good work he has done
>> maintaining and reviewing patches since November 2011.
> I think we're doing a decent job too. So thanks for that much at least. ;)
>
>> I would also like to use this post as a public venue to condemn the
>> unilateral smokey backroom decisions about XFS maintainership that SGI is
>> trying to enforce on the community.
> That really didn't happen Christoph. It's not in my tree or in a pull request.
>
> Linus, let me know what you want to do. I do think we're doing a fair job over
> here, and (geez) I'm just trying to add Mark as my backup since Alex is too
> busy. I know the RH people want more control, and that's understandable, but
> they really don't need to replace me to get their code in. Ouch.
>
> Thanks,
> Ben
Christoph is not a Red Hat person.
Jeff is from Oracle.
This is not a Red Hat vs SGI thing, Dave simply has earned the right to take on
the formal leadership role of maintainer.
Regards,
Ric
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 60+ messages in thread
* Re: XFS leadership and a new co-maintainer candidate
@ 2013-11-08 20:50 ` Ric Wheeler
0 siblings, 0 replies; 60+ messages in thread
From: Ric Wheeler @ 2013-11-08 20:50 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Ben Myers, Linus Torvalds
Cc: Christoph Hellwig, xfs, elder, Mark Tinguely, linux-kernel
On 11/08/2013 03:46 PM, Ben Myers wrote:
> Hey Christoph,
>
> On Fri, Nov 08, 2013 at 11:34:24AM -0800, Christoph Hellwig wrote:
>> On Fri, Nov 08, 2013 at 12:03:37PM -0600, Ben Myers wrote:
>>> Mark is replacing Alex as my backup because Alex is really busy at
>>> Linaro and asked to be taken off awhile ago. The holiday season is
>>> coming up and I fully intend to go off my meds, turn in to Fonzy the
>>> bear, and eat my hat. I need someone to watch the shop while I'm off
>>> exploring on Mars. I trust Mark to do that because he is totally
>>> awesome.
>>
>> Doing this as an unilateral decisions is not something that will win you
>> a fan base.
> It's posted for review.
>
>> While we never had anything reassembling a democracy in Linux Kernel
>> development making decisions without even contacting the major
>> contributor is wrong, twice so if the maintainer is a relatively minor
>> contributor to start with.
>>
>> Just because it recent came up elsewhere I'd like to recite the
>> definition from Trond here again:
>>
>> http://lists.linux-foundation.org/pipermail/ksummit-2012-discuss/2012-June/000066.html
>>
>> By many of the creative roles enlisted there it's clear that Dave should
>> be the maintainer. He's been the main contributor and chief architect
>> for XFS for many year, while the maintainers came and went at the mercy
>> of SGI. This is not meant to bad mouth either of you as I think you're
>> doing a reasonably good job compared to other maintainers, but at the
>> same time the direction is set by other people that have a much longer
>> involvement with the project, and having them officially in control
>> would help us forward a lot. It would also avoid having to spend
>> considerable resources to train every new generation of SGI maintainer.
>>
>> Coming to and end I would like to maintain Dave Chinner as the primary
>> XFS maintainer for all the work he has done as biggest contributor and
>> architect of XFS since longer than I can remember, and I would love to
>> retain Ben Myers as a co-maintainer for all the good work he has done
>> maintaining and reviewing patches since November 2011.
> I think we're doing a decent job too. So thanks for that much at least. ;)
>
>> I would also like to use this post as a public venue to condemn the
>> unilateral smokey backroom decisions about XFS maintainership that SGI is
>> trying to enforce on the community.
> That really didn't happen Christoph. It's not in my tree or in a pull request.
>
> Linus, let me know what you want to do. I do think we're doing a fair job over
> here, and (geez) I'm just trying to add Mark as my backup since Alex is too
> busy. I know the RH people want more control, and that's understandable, but
> they really don't need to replace me to get their code in. Ouch.
>
> Thanks,
> Ben
Christoph is not a Red Hat person.
Jeff is from Oracle.
This is not a Red Hat vs SGI thing, Dave simply has earned the right to take on
the formal leadership role of maintainer.
Regards,
Ric
_______________________________________________
xfs mailing list
xfs@oss.sgi.com
http://oss.sgi.com/mailman/listinfo/xfs
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 60+ messages in thread
* [PATCH] update xfs maintainers
2013-11-08 20:50 ` Ric Wheeler
@ 2013-11-08 22:03 ` Ben Myers
-1 siblings, 0 replies; 60+ messages in thread
From: Ben Myers @ 2013-11-08 22:03 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Ric Wheeler
Cc: Linus Torvalds, Christoph Hellwig, xfs, elder, Mark Tinguely,
linux-kernel
Hey Ric,
On Fri, Nov 08, 2013 at 03:50:21PM -0500, Ric Wheeler wrote:
> On 11/08/2013 03:46 PM, Ben Myers wrote:
> >Hey Christoph,
> >
> >On Fri, Nov 08, 2013 at 11:34:24AM -0800, Christoph Hellwig wrote:
> >>On Fri, Nov 08, 2013 at 12:03:37PM -0600, Ben Myers wrote:
> >>>Mark is replacing Alex as my backup because Alex is really busy at
> >>>Linaro and asked to be taken off awhile ago. The holiday season is
> >>>coming up and I fully intend to go off my meds, turn in to Fonzy the
> >>>bear, and eat my hat. I need someone to watch the shop while I'm off
> >>>exploring on Mars. I trust Mark to do that because he is totally
> >>>awesome.
> >>
> >>Doing this as an unilateral decisions is not something that will win you
> >>a fan base.
> >It's posted for review.
> >
> >>While we never had anything reassembling a democracy in Linux Kernel
> >>development making decisions without even contacting the major
> >>contributor is wrong, twice so if the maintainer is a relatively minor
> >>contributor to start with.
> >>
> >>Just because it recent came up elsewhere I'd like to recite the
> >>definition from Trond here again:
> >>
> >> http://lists.linux-foundation.org/pipermail/ksummit-2012-discuss/2012-June/000066.html
> >>
> >>By many of the creative roles enlisted there it's clear that Dave should
> >>be the maintainer. He's been the main contributor and chief architect
> >>for XFS for many year, while the maintainers came and went at the mercy
> >>of SGI. This is not meant to bad mouth either of you as I think you're
> >>doing a reasonably good job compared to other maintainers, but at the
> >>same time the direction is set by other people that have a much longer
> >>involvement with the project, and having them officially in control
> >>would help us forward a lot. It would also avoid having to spend
> >>considerable resources to train every new generation of SGI maintainer.
> >>
> >>Coming to and end I would like to maintain Dave Chinner as the primary
> >>XFS maintainer for all the work he has done as biggest contributor and
> >>architect of XFS since longer than I can remember, and I would love to
> >>retain Ben Myers as a co-maintainer for all the good work he has done
> >>maintaining and reviewing patches since November 2011.
> >I think we're doing a decent job too. So thanks for that much at least. ;)
> >>I would also like to use this post as a public venue to condemn the
> >>unilateral smokey backroom decisions about XFS maintainership that SGI is
> >>trying to enforce on the community.
> >That really didn't happen Christoph. It's not in my tree or in a pull request.
> >
> >Linus, let me know what you want to do. I do think we're doing a fair job over
> >here, and (geez) I'm just trying to add Mark as my backup since Alex is too
> >busy. I know the RH people want more control, and that's understandable, but
> >they really don't need to replace me to get their code in. Ouch.
> >
> >Thanks,
> > Ben
>
> Christoph is not a Red Hat person.
>
> Jeff is from Oracle.
>
> This is not a Red Hat vs SGI thing,
Sorry if my read on that was wrong.
> Dave simply has earned the right
> to take on the formal leadership role of maintainer.
Then we're gonna need some Reviewed-bys. ;)
From: Ben Myers <bpm@sgi.com>
xfs: update maintainers
Add Dave as maintainer of XFS.
Signed-off-by: Ben Myers <bpm@sgi.com>
---
MAINTAINERS | 2 +-
1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-)
Index: b/MAINTAINERS
===================================================================
--- a/MAINTAINERS 2013-11-08 15:20:18.935186245 -0600
+++ b/MAINTAINERS 2013-11-08 15:22:50.685245977 -0600
@@ -9387,8 +9387,8 @@ F: drivers/xen/*swiotlb*
XFS FILESYSTEM
P: Silicon Graphics Inc
+M: Dave Chinner <dchinner@fromorbit.com>
M: Ben Myers <bpm@sgi.com>
-M: Alex Elder <elder@kernel.org>
M: xfs@oss.sgi.com
L: xfs@oss.sgi.com
W: http://oss.sgi.com/projects/xfs
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 60+ messages in thread
* [PATCH] update xfs maintainers
@ 2013-11-08 22:03 ` Ben Myers
0 siblings, 0 replies; 60+ messages in thread
From: Ben Myers @ 2013-11-08 22:03 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Ric Wheeler
Cc: elder, Mark Tinguely, linux-kernel, xfs, Christoph Hellwig,
Linus Torvalds
Hey Ric,
On Fri, Nov 08, 2013 at 03:50:21PM -0500, Ric Wheeler wrote:
> On 11/08/2013 03:46 PM, Ben Myers wrote:
> >Hey Christoph,
> >
> >On Fri, Nov 08, 2013 at 11:34:24AM -0800, Christoph Hellwig wrote:
> >>On Fri, Nov 08, 2013 at 12:03:37PM -0600, Ben Myers wrote:
> >>>Mark is replacing Alex as my backup because Alex is really busy at
> >>>Linaro and asked to be taken off awhile ago. The holiday season is
> >>>coming up and I fully intend to go off my meds, turn in to Fonzy the
> >>>bear, and eat my hat. I need someone to watch the shop while I'm off
> >>>exploring on Mars. I trust Mark to do that because he is totally
> >>>awesome.
> >>
> >>Doing this as an unilateral decisions is not something that will win you
> >>a fan base.
> >It's posted for review.
> >
> >>While we never had anything reassembling a democracy in Linux Kernel
> >>development making decisions without even contacting the major
> >>contributor is wrong, twice so if the maintainer is a relatively minor
> >>contributor to start with.
> >>
> >>Just because it recent came up elsewhere I'd like to recite the
> >>definition from Trond here again:
> >>
> >> http://lists.linux-foundation.org/pipermail/ksummit-2012-discuss/2012-June/000066.html
> >>
> >>By many of the creative roles enlisted there it's clear that Dave should
> >>be the maintainer. He's been the main contributor and chief architect
> >>for XFS for many year, while the maintainers came and went at the mercy
> >>of SGI. This is not meant to bad mouth either of you as I think you're
> >>doing a reasonably good job compared to other maintainers, but at the
> >>same time the direction is set by other people that have a much longer
> >>involvement with the project, and having them officially in control
> >>would help us forward a lot. It would also avoid having to spend
> >>considerable resources to train every new generation of SGI maintainer.
> >>
> >>Coming to and end I would like to maintain Dave Chinner as the primary
> >>XFS maintainer for all the work he has done as biggest contributor and
> >>architect of XFS since longer than I can remember, and I would love to
> >>retain Ben Myers as a co-maintainer for all the good work he has done
> >>maintaining and reviewing patches since November 2011.
> >I think we're doing a decent job too. So thanks for that much at least. ;)
> >>I would also like to use this post as a public venue to condemn the
> >>unilateral smokey backroom decisions about XFS maintainership that SGI is
> >>trying to enforce on the community.
> >That really didn't happen Christoph. It's not in my tree or in a pull request.
> >
> >Linus, let me know what you want to do. I do think we're doing a fair job over
> >here, and (geez) I'm just trying to add Mark as my backup since Alex is too
> >busy. I know the RH people want more control, and that's understandable, but
> >they really don't need to replace me to get their code in. Ouch.
> >
> >Thanks,
> > Ben
>
> Christoph is not a Red Hat person.
>
> Jeff is from Oracle.
>
> This is not a Red Hat vs SGI thing,
Sorry if my read on that was wrong.
> Dave simply has earned the right
> to take on the formal leadership role of maintainer.
Then we're gonna need some Reviewed-bys. ;)
From: Ben Myers <bpm@sgi.com>
xfs: update maintainers
Add Dave as maintainer of XFS.
Signed-off-by: Ben Myers <bpm@sgi.com>
---
MAINTAINERS | 2 +-
1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-)
Index: b/MAINTAINERS
===================================================================
--- a/MAINTAINERS 2013-11-08 15:20:18.935186245 -0600
+++ b/MAINTAINERS 2013-11-08 15:22:50.685245977 -0600
@@ -9387,8 +9387,8 @@ F: drivers/xen/*swiotlb*
XFS FILESYSTEM
P: Silicon Graphics Inc
+M: Dave Chinner <dchinner@fromorbit.com>
M: Ben Myers <bpm@sgi.com>
-M: Alex Elder <elder@kernel.org>
M: xfs@oss.sgi.com
L: xfs@oss.sgi.com
W: http://oss.sgi.com/projects/xfs
_______________________________________________
xfs mailing list
xfs@oss.sgi.com
http://oss.sgi.com/mailman/listinfo/xfs
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 60+ messages in thread
* Re: [PATCH] update xfs maintainers
2013-11-08 22:03 ` Ben Myers
@ 2013-11-08 22:07 ` Ric Wheeler
-1 siblings, 0 replies; 60+ messages in thread
From: Ric Wheeler @ 2013-11-08 22:07 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Ben Myers
Cc: Linus Torvalds, Christoph Hellwig, xfs, elder, Mark Tinguely,
linux-kernel
On 11/08/2013 05:03 PM, Ben Myers wrote:
> Hey Ric,
>
> On Fri, Nov 08, 2013 at 03:50:21PM -0500, Ric Wheeler wrote:
>> On 11/08/2013 03:46 PM, Ben Myers wrote:
>>> Hey Christoph,
>>>
>>> On Fri, Nov 08, 2013 at 11:34:24AM -0800, Christoph Hellwig wrote:
>>>> On Fri, Nov 08, 2013 at 12:03:37PM -0600, Ben Myers wrote:
>>>>> Mark is replacing Alex as my backup because Alex is really busy at
>>>>> Linaro and asked to be taken off awhile ago. The holiday season is
>>>>> coming up and I fully intend to go off my meds, turn in to Fonzy the
>>>>> bear, and eat my hat. I need someone to watch the shop while I'm off
>>>>> exploring on Mars. I trust Mark to do that because he is totally
>>>>> awesome.
>>>> Doing this as an unilateral decisions is not something that will win you
>>>> a fan base.
>>> It's posted for review.
>>>
>>>> While we never had anything reassembling a democracy in Linux Kernel
>>>> development making decisions without even contacting the major
>>>> contributor is wrong, twice so if the maintainer is a relatively minor
>>>> contributor to start with.
>>>>
>>>> Just because it recent came up elsewhere I'd like to recite the
>>>> definition from Trond here again:
>>>>
>>>> http://lists.linux-foundation.org/pipermail/ksummit-2012-discuss/2012-June/000066.html
>>>>
>>>> By many of the creative roles enlisted there it's clear that Dave should
>>>> be the maintainer. He's been the main contributor and chief architect
>>>> for XFS for many year, while the maintainers came and went at the mercy
>>>> of SGI. This is not meant to bad mouth either of you as I think you're
>>>> doing a reasonably good job compared to other maintainers, but at the
>>>> same time the direction is set by other people that have a much longer
>>>> involvement with the project, and having them officially in control
>>>> would help us forward a lot. It would also avoid having to spend
>>>> considerable resources to train every new generation of SGI maintainer.
>>>>
>>>> Coming to and end I would like to maintain Dave Chinner as the primary
>>>> XFS maintainer for all the work he has done as biggest contributor and
>>>> architect of XFS since longer than I can remember, and I would love to
>>>> retain Ben Myers as a co-maintainer for all the good work he has done
>>>> maintaining and reviewing patches since November 2011.
>>> I think we're doing a decent job too. So thanks for that much at least. ;)
>>>> I would also like to use this post as a public venue to condemn the
>>>> unilateral smokey backroom decisions about XFS maintainership that SGI is
>>>> trying to enforce on the community.
>>> That really didn't happen Christoph. It's not in my tree or in a pull request.
>>>
>>> Linus, let me know what you want to do. I do think we're doing a fair job over
>>> here, and (geez) I'm just trying to add Mark as my backup since Alex is too
>>> busy. I know the RH people want more control, and that's understandable, but
>>> they really don't need to replace me to get their code in. Ouch.
>>>
>>> Thanks,
>>> Ben
>> Christoph is not a Red Hat person.
>>
>> Jeff is from Oracle.
>>
>> This is not a Red Hat vs SGI thing,
> Sorry if my read on that was wrong.
I do appreciate the work and effort you and the SGI team put in but think that
this will be a good way to keep the community happier and even more productive
going forward.
>
>> Dave simply has earned the right
>> to take on the formal leadership role of maintainer.
> Then we're gonna need some Reviewed-bys. ;)
Those should come from the developers, thanks!
Ric
>
> From: Ben Myers <bpm@sgi.com>
>
> xfs: update maintainers
>
> Add Dave as maintainer of XFS.
>
> Signed-off-by: Ben Myers <bpm@sgi.com>
> ---
> MAINTAINERS | 2 +-
> 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-)
>
> Index: b/MAINTAINERS
> ===================================================================
> --- a/MAINTAINERS 2013-11-08 15:20:18.935186245 -0600
> +++ b/MAINTAINERS 2013-11-08 15:22:50.685245977 -0600
> @@ -9387,8 +9387,8 @@ F: drivers/xen/*swiotlb*
>
> XFS FILESYSTEM
> P: Silicon Graphics Inc
> +M: Dave Chinner <dchinner@fromorbit.com>
> M: Ben Myers <bpm@sgi.com>
> -M: Alex Elder <elder@kernel.org>
> M: xfs@oss.sgi.com
> L: xfs@oss.sgi.com
> W: http://oss.sgi.com/projects/xfs
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 60+ messages in thread
* Re: [PATCH] update xfs maintainers
@ 2013-11-08 22:07 ` Ric Wheeler
0 siblings, 0 replies; 60+ messages in thread
From: Ric Wheeler @ 2013-11-08 22:07 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Ben Myers
Cc: elder, Mark Tinguely, linux-kernel, xfs, Christoph Hellwig,
Linus Torvalds
On 11/08/2013 05:03 PM, Ben Myers wrote:
> Hey Ric,
>
> On Fri, Nov 08, 2013 at 03:50:21PM -0500, Ric Wheeler wrote:
>> On 11/08/2013 03:46 PM, Ben Myers wrote:
>>> Hey Christoph,
>>>
>>> On Fri, Nov 08, 2013 at 11:34:24AM -0800, Christoph Hellwig wrote:
>>>> On Fri, Nov 08, 2013 at 12:03:37PM -0600, Ben Myers wrote:
>>>>> Mark is replacing Alex as my backup because Alex is really busy at
>>>>> Linaro and asked to be taken off awhile ago. The holiday season is
>>>>> coming up and I fully intend to go off my meds, turn in to Fonzy the
>>>>> bear, and eat my hat. I need someone to watch the shop while I'm off
>>>>> exploring on Mars. I trust Mark to do that because he is totally
>>>>> awesome.
>>>> Doing this as an unilateral decisions is not something that will win you
>>>> a fan base.
>>> It's posted for review.
>>>
>>>> While we never had anything reassembling a democracy in Linux Kernel
>>>> development making decisions without even contacting the major
>>>> contributor is wrong, twice so if the maintainer is a relatively minor
>>>> contributor to start with.
>>>>
>>>> Just because it recent came up elsewhere I'd like to recite the
>>>> definition from Trond here again:
>>>>
>>>> http://lists.linux-foundation.org/pipermail/ksummit-2012-discuss/2012-June/000066.html
>>>>
>>>> By many of the creative roles enlisted there it's clear that Dave should
>>>> be the maintainer. He's been the main contributor and chief architect
>>>> for XFS for many year, while the maintainers came and went at the mercy
>>>> of SGI. This is not meant to bad mouth either of you as I think you're
>>>> doing a reasonably good job compared to other maintainers, but at the
>>>> same time the direction is set by other people that have a much longer
>>>> involvement with the project, and having them officially in control
>>>> would help us forward a lot. It would also avoid having to spend
>>>> considerable resources to train every new generation of SGI maintainer.
>>>>
>>>> Coming to and end I would like to maintain Dave Chinner as the primary
>>>> XFS maintainer for all the work he has done as biggest contributor and
>>>> architect of XFS since longer than I can remember, and I would love to
>>>> retain Ben Myers as a co-maintainer for all the good work he has done
>>>> maintaining and reviewing patches since November 2011.
>>> I think we're doing a decent job too. So thanks for that much at least. ;)
>>>> I would also like to use this post as a public venue to condemn the
>>>> unilateral smokey backroom decisions about XFS maintainership that SGI is
>>>> trying to enforce on the community.
>>> That really didn't happen Christoph. It's not in my tree or in a pull request.
>>>
>>> Linus, let me know what you want to do. I do think we're doing a fair job over
>>> here, and (geez) I'm just trying to add Mark as my backup since Alex is too
>>> busy. I know the RH people want more control, and that's understandable, but
>>> they really don't need to replace me to get their code in. Ouch.
>>>
>>> Thanks,
>>> Ben
>> Christoph is not a Red Hat person.
>>
>> Jeff is from Oracle.
>>
>> This is not a Red Hat vs SGI thing,
> Sorry if my read on that was wrong.
I do appreciate the work and effort you and the SGI team put in but think that
this will be a good way to keep the community happier and even more productive
going forward.
>
>> Dave simply has earned the right
>> to take on the formal leadership role of maintainer.
> Then we're gonna need some Reviewed-bys. ;)
Those should come from the developers, thanks!
Ric
>
> From: Ben Myers <bpm@sgi.com>
>
> xfs: update maintainers
>
> Add Dave as maintainer of XFS.
>
> Signed-off-by: Ben Myers <bpm@sgi.com>
> ---
> MAINTAINERS | 2 +-
> 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-)
>
> Index: b/MAINTAINERS
> ===================================================================
> --- a/MAINTAINERS 2013-11-08 15:20:18.935186245 -0600
> +++ b/MAINTAINERS 2013-11-08 15:22:50.685245977 -0600
> @@ -9387,8 +9387,8 @@ F: drivers/xen/*swiotlb*
>
> XFS FILESYSTEM
> P: Silicon Graphics Inc
> +M: Dave Chinner <dchinner@fromorbit.com>
> M: Ben Myers <bpm@sgi.com>
> -M: Alex Elder <elder@kernel.org>
> M: xfs@oss.sgi.com
> L: xfs@oss.sgi.com
> W: http://oss.sgi.com/projects/xfs
_______________________________________________
xfs mailing list
xfs@oss.sgi.com
http://oss.sgi.com/mailman/listinfo/xfs
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 60+ messages in thread
* Re: [PATCH] update xfs maintainers
2013-11-08 22:07 ` Ric Wheeler
@ 2013-11-08 22:17 ` Ben Myers
-1 siblings, 0 replies; 60+ messages in thread
From: Ben Myers @ 2013-11-08 22:17 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Ric Wheeler
Cc: Linus Torvalds, Christoph Hellwig, xfs, elder, Mark Tinguely,
linux-kernel
Hey Ric,
On Fri, Nov 08, 2013 at 05:07:45PM -0500, Ric Wheeler wrote:
> On 11/08/2013 05:03 PM, Ben Myers wrote:
> >Hey Ric,
> >
> >On Fri, Nov 08, 2013 at 03:50:21PM -0500, Ric Wheeler wrote:
> >>On 11/08/2013 03:46 PM, Ben Myers wrote:
> >>>Hey Christoph,
> >>>
> >>>On Fri, Nov 08, 2013 at 11:34:24AM -0800, Christoph Hellwig wrote:
> >>>>On Fri, Nov 08, 2013 at 12:03:37PM -0600, Ben Myers wrote:
> >>>>>Mark is replacing Alex as my backup because Alex is really busy at
> >>>>>Linaro and asked to be taken off awhile ago. The holiday season is
> >>>>>coming up and I fully intend to go off my meds, turn in to Fonzy the
> >>>>>bear, and eat my hat. I need someone to watch the shop while I'm off
> >>>>>exploring on Mars. I trust Mark to do that because he is totally
> >>>>>awesome.
> >>>>Doing this as an unilateral decisions is not something that will win you
> >>>>a fan base.
> >>>It's posted for review.
> >>>
> >>>>While we never had anything reassembling a democracy in Linux Kernel
> >>>>development making decisions without even contacting the major
> >>>>contributor is wrong, twice so if the maintainer is a relatively minor
> >>>>contributor to start with.
> >>>>
> >>>>Just because it recent came up elsewhere I'd like to recite the
> >>>>definition from Trond here again:
> >>>>
> >>>> http://lists.linux-foundation.org/pipermail/ksummit-2012-discuss/2012-June/000066.html
> >>>>
> >>>>By many of the creative roles enlisted there it's clear that Dave should
> >>>>be the maintainer. He's been the main contributor and chief architect
> >>>>for XFS for many year, while the maintainers came and went at the mercy
> >>>>of SGI. This is not meant to bad mouth either of you as I think you're
> >>>>doing a reasonably good job compared to other maintainers, but at the
> >>>>same time the direction is set by other people that have a much longer
> >>>>involvement with the project, and having them officially in control
> >>>>would help us forward a lot. It would also avoid having to spend
> >>>>considerable resources to train every new generation of SGI maintainer.
> >>>>
> >>>>Coming to and end I would like to maintain Dave Chinner as the primary
> >>>>XFS maintainer for all the work he has done as biggest contributor and
> >>>>architect of XFS since longer than I can remember, and I would love to
> >>>>retain Ben Myers as a co-maintainer for all the good work he has done
> >>>>maintaining and reviewing patches since November 2011.
> >>>I think we're doing a decent job too. So thanks for that much at least. ;)
> >>>>I would also like to use this post as a public venue to condemn the
> >>>>unilateral smokey backroom decisions about XFS maintainership that SGI is
> >>>>trying to enforce on the community.
> >>>That really didn't happen Christoph. It's not in my tree or in a pull request.
> >>>
> >>>Linus, let me know what you want to do. I do think we're doing a fair job over
> >>>here, and (geez) I'm just trying to add Mark as my backup since Alex is too
> >>>busy. I know the RH people want more control, and that's understandable, but
> >>>they really don't need to replace me to get their code in. Ouch.
> >>>
> >>>Thanks,
> >>> Ben
> >>Christoph is not a Red Hat person.
> >>
> >>Jeff is from Oracle.
> >>
> >>This is not a Red Hat vs SGI thing,
> >Sorry if my read on that was wrong.
>
> I do appreciate the work and effort you and the SGI team put in but
> think that this will be a good way to keep the community happier and
> even more productive going forward.
>
> >>Dave simply has earned the right
> >>to take on the formal leadership role of maintainer.
> >Then we're gonna need some Reviewed-bys. ;)
>
> Those should come from the developers, thanks!
I actually do need your Reviewed-by. We'll try and get this one in 3.13. ;)
Thanks,
Ben
> >From: Ben Myers <bpm@sgi.com>
> >
> >xfs: update maintainers
> >
> >Add Dave as maintainer of XFS.
> >
> >Signed-off-by: Ben Myers <bpm@sgi.com>
> >---
> > MAINTAINERS | 2 +-
> > 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-)
> >
> >Index: b/MAINTAINERS
> >===================================================================
> >--- a/MAINTAINERS 2013-11-08 15:20:18.935186245 -0600
> >+++ b/MAINTAINERS 2013-11-08 15:22:50.685245977 -0600
> >@@ -9387,8 +9387,8 @@ F: drivers/xen/*swiotlb*
> > XFS FILESYSTEM
> > P: Silicon Graphics Inc
> >+M: Dave Chinner <dchinner@fromorbit.com>
> > M: Ben Myers <bpm@sgi.com>
> >-M: Alex Elder <elder@kernel.org>
> > M: xfs@oss.sgi.com
> > L: xfs@oss.sgi.com
> > W: http://oss.sgi.com/projects/xfs
>
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 60+ messages in thread
* Re: [PATCH] update xfs maintainers
@ 2013-11-08 22:17 ` Ben Myers
0 siblings, 0 replies; 60+ messages in thread
From: Ben Myers @ 2013-11-08 22:17 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Ric Wheeler
Cc: elder, Mark Tinguely, linux-kernel, xfs, Christoph Hellwig,
Linus Torvalds
Hey Ric,
On Fri, Nov 08, 2013 at 05:07:45PM -0500, Ric Wheeler wrote:
> On 11/08/2013 05:03 PM, Ben Myers wrote:
> >Hey Ric,
> >
> >On Fri, Nov 08, 2013 at 03:50:21PM -0500, Ric Wheeler wrote:
> >>On 11/08/2013 03:46 PM, Ben Myers wrote:
> >>>Hey Christoph,
> >>>
> >>>On Fri, Nov 08, 2013 at 11:34:24AM -0800, Christoph Hellwig wrote:
> >>>>On Fri, Nov 08, 2013 at 12:03:37PM -0600, Ben Myers wrote:
> >>>>>Mark is replacing Alex as my backup because Alex is really busy at
> >>>>>Linaro and asked to be taken off awhile ago. The holiday season is
> >>>>>coming up and I fully intend to go off my meds, turn in to Fonzy the
> >>>>>bear, and eat my hat. I need someone to watch the shop while I'm off
> >>>>>exploring on Mars. I trust Mark to do that because he is totally
> >>>>>awesome.
> >>>>Doing this as an unilateral decisions is not something that will win you
> >>>>a fan base.
> >>>It's posted for review.
> >>>
> >>>>While we never had anything reassembling a democracy in Linux Kernel
> >>>>development making decisions without even contacting the major
> >>>>contributor is wrong, twice so if the maintainer is a relatively minor
> >>>>contributor to start with.
> >>>>
> >>>>Just because it recent came up elsewhere I'd like to recite the
> >>>>definition from Trond here again:
> >>>>
> >>>> http://lists.linux-foundation.org/pipermail/ksummit-2012-discuss/2012-June/000066.html
> >>>>
> >>>>By many of the creative roles enlisted there it's clear that Dave should
> >>>>be the maintainer. He's been the main contributor and chief architect
> >>>>for XFS for many year, while the maintainers came and went at the mercy
> >>>>of SGI. This is not meant to bad mouth either of you as I think you're
> >>>>doing a reasonably good job compared to other maintainers, but at the
> >>>>same time the direction is set by other people that have a much longer
> >>>>involvement with the project, and having them officially in control
> >>>>would help us forward a lot. It would also avoid having to spend
> >>>>considerable resources to train every new generation of SGI maintainer.
> >>>>
> >>>>Coming to and end I would like to maintain Dave Chinner as the primary
> >>>>XFS maintainer for all the work he has done as biggest contributor and
> >>>>architect of XFS since longer than I can remember, and I would love to
> >>>>retain Ben Myers as a co-maintainer for all the good work he has done
> >>>>maintaining and reviewing patches since November 2011.
> >>>I think we're doing a decent job too. So thanks for that much at least. ;)
> >>>>I would also like to use this post as a public venue to condemn the
> >>>>unilateral smokey backroom decisions about XFS maintainership that SGI is
> >>>>trying to enforce on the community.
> >>>That really didn't happen Christoph. It's not in my tree or in a pull request.
> >>>
> >>>Linus, let me know what you want to do. I do think we're doing a fair job over
> >>>here, and (geez) I'm just trying to add Mark as my backup since Alex is too
> >>>busy. I know the RH people want more control, and that's understandable, but
> >>>they really don't need to replace me to get their code in. Ouch.
> >>>
> >>>Thanks,
> >>> Ben
> >>Christoph is not a Red Hat person.
> >>
> >>Jeff is from Oracle.
> >>
> >>This is not a Red Hat vs SGI thing,
> >Sorry if my read on that was wrong.
>
> I do appreciate the work and effort you and the SGI team put in but
> think that this will be a good way to keep the community happier and
> even more productive going forward.
>
> >>Dave simply has earned the right
> >>to take on the formal leadership role of maintainer.
> >Then we're gonna need some Reviewed-bys. ;)
>
> Those should come from the developers, thanks!
I actually do need your Reviewed-by. We'll try and get this one in 3.13. ;)
Thanks,
Ben
> >From: Ben Myers <bpm@sgi.com>
> >
> >xfs: update maintainers
> >
> >Add Dave as maintainer of XFS.
> >
> >Signed-off-by: Ben Myers <bpm@sgi.com>
> >---
> > MAINTAINERS | 2 +-
> > 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-)
> >
> >Index: b/MAINTAINERS
> >===================================================================
> >--- a/MAINTAINERS 2013-11-08 15:20:18.935186245 -0600
> >+++ b/MAINTAINERS 2013-11-08 15:22:50.685245977 -0600
> >@@ -9387,8 +9387,8 @@ F: drivers/xen/*swiotlb*
> > XFS FILESYSTEM
> > P: Silicon Graphics Inc
> >+M: Dave Chinner <dchinner@fromorbit.com>
> > M: Ben Myers <bpm@sgi.com>
> >-M: Alex Elder <elder@kernel.org>
> > M: xfs@oss.sgi.com
> > L: xfs@oss.sgi.com
> > W: http://oss.sgi.com/projects/xfs
>
_______________________________________________
xfs mailing list
xfs@oss.sgi.com
http://oss.sgi.com/mailman/listinfo/xfs
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 60+ messages in thread
* Re: [PATCH] update xfs maintainers
2013-11-08 22:03 ` Ben Myers
@ 2013-11-08 22:59 ` Zhi Yong Wu
-1 siblings, 0 replies; 60+ messages in thread
From: Zhi Yong Wu @ 2013-11-08 22:59 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Ben Myers
Cc: Ric Wheeler, elder, Mark Tinguely, linux-kernel, xfstests,
Christoph Hellwig, Linus Torvalds
On Sat, Nov 9, 2013 at 6:03 AM, Ben Myers <bpm@sgi.com> wrote:
> Hey Ric,
>
> On Fri, Nov 08, 2013 at 03:50:21PM -0500, Ric Wheeler wrote:
>> On 11/08/2013 03:46 PM, Ben Myers wrote:
>> >Hey Christoph,
>> >
>> >On Fri, Nov 08, 2013 at 11:34:24AM -0800, Christoph Hellwig wrote:
>> >>On Fri, Nov 08, 2013 at 12:03:37PM -0600, Ben Myers wrote:
>> >>>Mark is replacing Alex as my backup because Alex is really busy at
>> >>>Linaro and asked to be taken off awhile ago. The holiday season is
>> >>>coming up and I fully intend to go off my meds, turn in to Fonzy the
>> >>>bear, and eat my hat. I need someone to watch the shop while I'm off
>> >>>exploring on Mars. I trust Mark to do that because he is totally
>> >>>awesome.
>> >>
>> >>Doing this as an unilateral decisions is not something that will win you
>> >>a fan base.
>> >It's posted for review.
>> >
>> >>While we never had anything reassembling a democracy in Linux Kernel
>> >>development making decisions without even contacting the major
>> >>contributor is wrong, twice so if the maintainer is a relatively minor
>> >>contributor to start with.
>> >>
>> >>Just because it recent came up elsewhere I'd like to recite the
>> >>definition from Trond here again:
>> >>
>> >> http://lists.linux-foundation.org/pipermail/ksummit-2012-discuss/2012-June/000066.html
>> >>
>> >>By many of the creative roles enlisted there it's clear that Dave should
>> >>be the maintainer. He's been the main contributor and chief architect
>> >>for XFS for many year, while the maintainers came and went at the mercy
>> >>of SGI. This is not meant to bad mouth either of you as I think you're
>> >>doing a reasonably good job compared to other maintainers, but at the
>> >>same time the direction is set by other people that have a much longer
>> >>involvement with the project, and having them officially in control
>> >>would help us forward a lot. It would also avoid having to spend
>> >>considerable resources to train every new generation of SGI maintainer.
>> >>
>> >>Coming to and end I would like to maintain Dave Chinner as the primary
>> >>XFS maintainer for all the work he has done as biggest contributor and
>> >>architect of XFS since longer than I can remember, and I would love to
>> >>retain Ben Myers as a co-maintainer for all the good work he has done
>> >>maintaining and reviewing patches since November 2011.
>> >I think we're doing a decent job too. So thanks for that much at least. ;)
>> >>I would also like to use this post as a public venue to condemn the
>> >>unilateral smokey backroom decisions about XFS maintainership that SGI is
>> >>trying to enforce on the community.
>> >That really didn't happen Christoph. It's not in my tree or in a pull request.
>> >
>> >Linus, let me know what you want to do. I do think we're doing a fair job over
>> >here, and (geez) I'm just trying to add Mark as my backup since Alex is too
>> >busy. I know the RH people want more control, and that's understandable, but
>> >they really don't need to replace me to get their code in. Ouch.
>> >
>> >Thanks,
>> > Ben
>>
>> Christoph is not a Red Hat person.
>>
>> Jeff is from Oracle.
>>
>> This is not a Red Hat vs SGI thing,
>
> Sorry if my read on that was wrong.
>
>> Dave simply has earned the right
>> to take on the formal leadership role of maintainer.
>
> Then we're gonna need some Reviewed-bys. ;)
>
> From: Ben Myers <bpm@sgi.com>
>
> xfs: update maintainers
>
> Add Dave as maintainer of XFS.
>
> Signed-off-by: Ben Myers <bpm@sgi.com>
> ---
> MAINTAINERS | 2 +-
> 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-)
>
> Index: b/MAINTAINERS
> ===================================================================
> --- a/MAINTAINERS 2013-11-08 15:20:18.935186245 -0600
> +++ b/MAINTAINERS 2013-11-08 15:22:50.685245977 -0600
> @@ -9387,8 +9387,8 @@ F: drivers/xen/*swiotlb*
>
> XFS FILESYSTEM
> P: Silicon Graphics Inc
> +M: Dave Chinner <dchinner@fromorbit.com>
Use his personal private mail account? I guess that you should ask for
his opinion at first, or it is more appropriate that he submit this
patch by himself.
> M: Ben Myers <bpm@sgi.com>
> -M: Alex Elder <elder@kernel.org>
> M: xfs@oss.sgi.com
> L: xfs@oss.sgi.com
> W: http://oss.sgi.com/projects/xfs
>
> _______________________________________________
> xfs mailing list
> xfs@oss.sgi.com
> http://oss.sgi.com/mailman/listinfo/xfs
--
Regards,
Zhi Yong Wu
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 60+ messages in thread
* Re: [PATCH] update xfs maintainers
@ 2013-11-08 22:59 ` Zhi Yong Wu
0 siblings, 0 replies; 60+ messages in thread
From: Zhi Yong Wu @ 2013-11-08 22:59 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Ben Myers
Cc: elder, Mark Tinguely, Linus Torvalds, linux-kernel, xfstests,
Christoph Hellwig, Ric Wheeler
On Sat, Nov 9, 2013 at 6:03 AM, Ben Myers <bpm@sgi.com> wrote:
> Hey Ric,
>
> On Fri, Nov 08, 2013 at 03:50:21PM -0500, Ric Wheeler wrote:
>> On 11/08/2013 03:46 PM, Ben Myers wrote:
>> >Hey Christoph,
>> >
>> >On Fri, Nov 08, 2013 at 11:34:24AM -0800, Christoph Hellwig wrote:
>> >>On Fri, Nov 08, 2013 at 12:03:37PM -0600, Ben Myers wrote:
>> >>>Mark is replacing Alex as my backup because Alex is really busy at
>> >>>Linaro and asked to be taken off awhile ago. The holiday season is
>> >>>coming up and I fully intend to go off my meds, turn in to Fonzy the
>> >>>bear, and eat my hat. I need someone to watch the shop while I'm off
>> >>>exploring on Mars. I trust Mark to do that because he is totally
>> >>>awesome.
>> >>
>> >>Doing this as an unilateral decisions is not something that will win you
>> >>a fan base.
>> >It's posted for review.
>> >
>> >>While we never had anything reassembling a democracy in Linux Kernel
>> >>development making decisions without even contacting the major
>> >>contributor is wrong, twice so if the maintainer is a relatively minor
>> >>contributor to start with.
>> >>
>> >>Just because it recent came up elsewhere I'd like to recite the
>> >>definition from Trond here again:
>> >>
>> >> http://lists.linux-foundation.org/pipermail/ksummit-2012-discuss/2012-June/000066.html
>> >>
>> >>By many of the creative roles enlisted there it's clear that Dave should
>> >>be the maintainer. He's been the main contributor and chief architect
>> >>for XFS for many year, while the maintainers came and went at the mercy
>> >>of SGI. This is not meant to bad mouth either of you as I think you're
>> >>doing a reasonably good job compared to other maintainers, but at the
>> >>same time the direction is set by other people that have a much longer
>> >>involvement with the project, and having them officially in control
>> >>would help us forward a lot. It would also avoid having to spend
>> >>considerable resources to train every new generation of SGI maintainer.
>> >>
>> >>Coming to and end I would like to maintain Dave Chinner as the primary
>> >>XFS maintainer for all the work he has done as biggest contributor and
>> >>architect of XFS since longer than I can remember, and I would love to
>> >>retain Ben Myers as a co-maintainer for all the good work he has done
>> >>maintaining and reviewing patches since November 2011.
>> >I think we're doing a decent job too. So thanks for that much at least. ;)
>> >>I would also like to use this post as a public venue to condemn the
>> >>unilateral smokey backroom decisions about XFS maintainership that SGI is
>> >>trying to enforce on the community.
>> >That really didn't happen Christoph. It's not in my tree or in a pull request.
>> >
>> >Linus, let me know what you want to do. I do think we're doing a fair job over
>> >here, and (geez) I'm just trying to add Mark as my backup since Alex is too
>> >busy. I know the RH people want more control, and that's understandable, but
>> >they really don't need to replace me to get their code in. Ouch.
>> >
>> >Thanks,
>> > Ben
>>
>> Christoph is not a Red Hat person.
>>
>> Jeff is from Oracle.
>>
>> This is not a Red Hat vs SGI thing,
>
> Sorry if my read on that was wrong.
>
>> Dave simply has earned the right
>> to take on the formal leadership role of maintainer.
>
> Then we're gonna need some Reviewed-bys. ;)
>
> From: Ben Myers <bpm@sgi.com>
>
> xfs: update maintainers
>
> Add Dave as maintainer of XFS.
>
> Signed-off-by: Ben Myers <bpm@sgi.com>
> ---
> MAINTAINERS | 2 +-
> 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-)
>
> Index: b/MAINTAINERS
> ===================================================================
> --- a/MAINTAINERS 2013-11-08 15:20:18.935186245 -0600
> +++ b/MAINTAINERS 2013-11-08 15:22:50.685245977 -0600
> @@ -9387,8 +9387,8 @@ F: drivers/xen/*swiotlb*
>
> XFS FILESYSTEM
> P: Silicon Graphics Inc
> +M: Dave Chinner <dchinner@fromorbit.com>
Use his personal private mail account? I guess that you should ask for
his opinion at first, or it is more appropriate that he submit this
patch by himself.
> M: Ben Myers <bpm@sgi.com>
> -M: Alex Elder <elder@kernel.org>
> M: xfs@oss.sgi.com
> L: xfs@oss.sgi.com
> W: http://oss.sgi.com/projects/xfs
>
> _______________________________________________
> xfs mailing list
> xfs@oss.sgi.com
> http://oss.sgi.com/mailman/listinfo/xfs
--
Regards,
Zhi Yong Wu
_______________________________________________
xfs mailing list
xfs@oss.sgi.com
http://oss.sgi.com/mailman/listinfo/xfs
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 60+ messages in thread
* Re: [PATCH] update xfs maintainers
2013-11-08 22:17 ` Ben Myers
@ 2013-11-08 23:32 ` Ric Wheeler
-1 siblings, 0 replies; 60+ messages in thread
From: Ric Wheeler @ 2013-11-08 23:32 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Ben Myers
Cc: Linus Torvalds, Christoph Hellwig, xfs, elder, Mark Tinguely,
linux-kernel
On 11/08/2013 05:17 PM, Ben Myers wrote:
> Hey Ric,
>
> On Fri, Nov 08, 2013 at 05:07:45PM -0500, Ric Wheeler wrote:
>> On 11/08/2013 05:03 PM, Ben Myers wrote:
>>> Hey Ric,
>>>
>>> On Fri, Nov 08, 2013 at 03:50:21PM -0500, Ric Wheeler wrote:
>>>> On 11/08/2013 03:46 PM, Ben Myers wrote:
>>>>> Hey Christoph,
>>>>>
>>>>> On Fri, Nov 08, 2013 at 11:34:24AM -0800, Christoph Hellwig wrote:
>>>>>> On Fri, Nov 08, 2013 at 12:03:37PM -0600, Ben Myers wrote:
>>>>>>> Mark is replacing Alex as my backup because Alex is really busy at
>>>>>>> Linaro and asked to be taken off awhile ago. The holiday season is
>>>>>>> coming up and I fully intend to go off my meds, turn in to Fonzy the
>>>>>>> bear, and eat my hat. I need someone to watch the shop while I'm off
>>>>>>> exploring on Mars. I trust Mark to do that because he is totally
>>>>>>> awesome.
>>>>>> Doing this as an unilateral decisions is not something that will win you
>>>>>> a fan base.
>>>>> It's posted for review.
>>>>>
>>>>>> While we never had anything reassembling a democracy in Linux Kernel
>>>>>> development making decisions without even contacting the major
>>>>>> contributor is wrong, twice so if the maintainer is a relatively minor
>>>>>> contributor to start with.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Just because it recent came up elsewhere I'd like to recite the
>>>>>> definition from Trond here again:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> http://lists.linux-foundation.org/pipermail/ksummit-2012-discuss/2012-June/000066.html
>>>>>>
>>>>>> By many of the creative roles enlisted there it's clear that Dave should
>>>>>> be the maintainer. He's been the main contributor and chief architect
>>>>>> for XFS for many year, while the maintainers came and went at the mercy
>>>>>> of SGI. This is not meant to bad mouth either of you as I think you're
>>>>>> doing a reasonably good job compared to other maintainers, but at the
>>>>>> same time the direction is set by other people that have a much longer
>>>>>> involvement with the project, and having them officially in control
>>>>>> would help us forward a lot. It would also avoid having to spend
>>>>>> considerable resources to train every new generation of SGI maintainer.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Coming to and end I would like to maintain Dave Chinner as the primary
>>>>>> XFS maintainer for all the work he has done as biggest contributor and
>>>>>> architect of XFS since longer than I can remember, and I would love to
>>>>>> retain Ben Myers as a co-maintainer for all the good work he has done
>>>>>> maintaining and reviewing patches since November 2011.
>>>>> I think we're doing a decent job too. So thanks for that much at least. ;)
>>>>>> I would also like to use this post as a public venue to condemn the
>>>>>> unilateral smokey backroom decisions about XFS maintainership that SGI is
>>>>>> trying to enforce on the community.
>>>>> That really didn't happen Christoph. It's not in my tree or in a pull request.
>>>>>
>>>>> Linus, let me know what you want to do. I do think we're doing a fair job over
>>>>> here, and (geez) I'm just trying to add Mark as my backup since Alex is too
>>>>> busy. I know the RH people want more control, and that's understandable, but
>>>>> they really don't need to replace me to get their code in. Ouch.
>>>>>
>>>>> Thanks,
>>>>> Ben
>>>> Christoph is not a Red Hat person.
>>>>
>>>> Jeff is from Oracle.
>>>>
>>>> This is not a Red Hat vs SGI thing,
>>> Sorry if my read on that was wrong.
>> I do appreciate the work and effort you and the SGI team put in but
>> think that this will be a good way to keep the community happier and
>> even more productive going forward.
>>
>>>> Dave simply has earned the right
>>>> to take on the formal leadership role of maintainer.
>>> Then we're gonna need some Reviewed-bys. ;)
>> Those should come from the developers, thanks!
> I actually do need your Reviewed-by. We'll try and get this one in 3.13. ;)
>
> Thanks,
> Ben
Happy to do that - I do think that Dave mostly posts from his redhat.com
account, but he can comment once he gets back online.
Reviewed-by: Ric Wheeler <rwheeler@redhat.com>
>
>>> From: Ben Myers <bpm@sgi.com>
>>>
>>> xfs: update maintainers
>>>
>>> Add Dave as maintainer of XFS.
>>>
>>> Signed-off-by: Ben Myers <bpm@sgi.com>
>>> ---
>>> MAINTAINERS | 2 +-
>>> 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-)
>>>
>>> Index: b/MAINTAINERS
>>> ===================================================================
>>> --- a/MAINTAINERS 2013-11-08 15:20:18.935186245 -0600
>>> +++ b/MAINTAINERS 2013-11-08 15:22:50.685245977 -0600
>>> @@ -9387,8 +9387,8 @@ F: drivers/xen/*swiotlb*
>>> XFS FILESYSTEM
>>> P: Silicon Graphics Inc
>>> +M: Dave Chinner <dchinner@fromorbit.com>
>>> M: Ben Myers <bpm@sgi.com>
>>> -M: Alex Elder <elder@kernel.org>
>>> M: xfs@oss.sgi.com
>>> L: xfs@oss.sgi.com
>>> W: http://oss.sgi.com/projects/xfs
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 60+ messages in thread
* Re: [PATCH] update xfs maintainers
@ 2013-11-08 23:32 ` Ric Wheeler
0 siblings, 0 replies; 60+ messages in thread
From: Ric Wheeler @ 2013-11-08 23:32 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Ben Myers
Cc: elder, Mark Tinguely, linux-kernel, xfs, Christoph Hellwig,
Linus Torvalds
On 11/08/2013 05:17 PM, Ben Myers wrote:
> Hey Ric,
>
> On Fri, Nov 08, 2013 at 05:07:45PM -0500, Ric Wheeler wrote:
>> On 11/08/2013 05:03 PM, Ben Myers wrote:
>>> Hey Ric,
>>>
>>> On Fri, Nov 08, 2013 at 03:50:21PM -0500, Ric Wheeler wrote:
>>>> On 11/08/2013 03:46 PM, Ben Myers wrote:
>>>>> Hey Christoph,
>>>>>
>>>>> On Fri, Nov 08, 2013 at 11:34:24AM -0800, Christoph Hellwig wrote:
>>>>>> On Fri, Nov 08, 2013 at 12:03:37PM -0600, Ben Myers wrote:
>>>>>>> Mark is replacing Alex as my backup because Alex is really busy at
>>>>>>> Linaro and asked to be taken off awhile ago. The holiday season is
>>>>>>> coming up and I fully intend to go off my meds, turn in to Fonzy the
>>>>>>> bear, and eat my hat. I need someone to watch the shop while I'm off
>>>>>>> exploring on Mars. I trust Mark to do that because he is totally
>>>>>>> awesome.
>>>>>> Doing this as an unilateral decisions is not something that will win you
>>>>>> a fan base.
>>>>> It's posted for review.
>>>>>
>>>>>> While we never had anything reassembling a democracy in Linux Kernel
>>>>>> development making decisions without even contacting the major
>>>>>> contributor is wrong, twice so if the maintainer is a relatively minor
>>>>>> contributor to start with.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Just because it recent came up elsewhere I'd like to recite the
>>>>>> definition from Trond here again:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> http://lists.linux-foundation.org/pipermail/ksummit-2012-discuss/2012-June/000066.html
>>>>>>
>>>>>> By many of the creative roles enlisted there it's clear that Dave should
>>>>>> be the maintainer. He's been the main contributor and chief architect
>>>>>> for XFS for many year, while the maintainers came and went at the mercy
>>>>>> of SGI. This is not meant to bad mouth either of you as I think you're
>>>>>> doing a reasonably good job compared to other maintainers, but at the
>>>>>> same time the direction is set by other people that have a much longer
>>>>>> involvement with the project, and having them officially in control
>>>>>> would help us forward a lot. It would also avoid having to spend
>>>>>> considerable resources to train every new generation of SGI maintainer.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Coming to and end I would like to maintain Dave Chinner as the primary
>>>>>> XFS maintainer for all the work he has done as biggest contributor and
>>>>>> architect of XFS since longer than I can remember, and I would love to
>>>>>> retain Ben Myers as a co-maintainer for all the good work he has done
>>>>>> maintaining and reviewing patches since November 2011.
>>>>> I think we're doing a decent job too. So thanks for that much at least. ;)
>>>>>> I would also like to use this post as a public venue to condemn the
>>>>>> unilateral smokey backroom decisions about XFS maintainership that SGI is
>>>>>> trying to enforce on the community.
>>>>> That really didn't happen Christoph. It's not in my tree or in a pull request.
>>>>>
>>>>> Linus, let me know what you want to do. I do think we're doing a fair job over
>>>>> here, and (geez) I'm just trying to add Mark as my backup since Alex is too
>>>>> busy. I know the RH people want more control, and that's understandable, but
>>>>> they really don't need to replace me to get their code in. Ouch.
>>>>>
>>>>> Thanks,
>>>>> Ben
>>>> Christoph is not a Red Hat person.
>>>>
>>>> Jeff is from Oracle.
>>>>
>>>> This is not a Red Hat vs SGI thing,
>>> Sorry if my read on that was wrong.
>> I do appreciate the work and effort you and the SGI team put in but
>> think that this will be a good way to keep the community happier and
>> even more productive going forward.
>>
>>>> Dave simply has earned the right
>>>> to take on the formal leadership role of maintainer.
>>> Then we're gonna need some Reviewed-bys. ;)
>> Those should come from the developers, thanks!
> I actually do need your Reviewed-by. We'll try and get this one in 3.13. ;)
>
> Thanks,
> Ben
Happy to do that - I do think that Dave mostly posts from his redhat.com
account, but he can comment once he gets back online.
Reviewed-by: Ric Wheeler <rwheeler@redhat.com>
>
>>> From: Ben Myers <bpm@sgi.com>
>>>
>>> xfs: update maintainers
>>>
>>> Add Dave as maintainer of XFS.
>>>
>>> Signed-off-by: Ben Myers <bpm@sgi.com>
>>> ---
>>> MAINTAINERS | 2 +-
>>> 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-)
>>>
>>> Index: b/MAINTAINERS
>>> ===================================================================
>>> --- a/MAINTAINERS 2013-11-08 15:20:18.935186245 -0600
>>> +++ b/MAINTAINERS 2013-11-08 15:22:50.685245977 -0600
>>> @@ -9387,8 +9387,8 @@ F: drivers/xen/*swiotlb*
>>> XFS FILESYSTEM
>>> P: Silicon Graphics Inc
>>> +M: Dave Chinner <dchinner@fromorbit.com>
>>> M: Ben Myers <bpm@sgi.com>
>>> -M: Alex Elder <elder@kernel.org>
>>> M: xfs@oss.sgi.com
>>> L: xfs@oss.sgi.com
>>> W: http://oss.sgi.com/projects/xfs
_______________________________________________
xfs mailing list
xfs@oss.sgi.com
http://oss.sgi.com/mailman/listinfo/xfs
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 60+ messages in thread
* Re: [PATCH] update xfs maintainers
2013-11-08 22:59 ` Zhi Yong Wu
@ 2013-11-08 23:44 ` NeilBrown
-1 siblings, 0 replies; 60+ messages in thread
From: NeilBrown @ 2013-11-08 23:44 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Zhi Yong Wu
Cc: Ben Myers, Ric Wheeler, elder, Mark Tinguely, linux-kernel,
xfstests, Christoph Hellwig, Linus Torvalds
[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 4844 bytes --]
On Sat, 9 Nov 2013 06:59:00 +0800 Zhi Yong Wu <zwu.kernel@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Sat, Nov 9, 2013 at 6:03 AM, Ben Myers <bpm@sgi.com> wrote:
> > Hey Ric,
> >
> > On Fri, Nov 08, 2013 at 03:50:21PM -0500, Ric Wheeler wrote:
> >> On 11/08/2013 03:46 PM, Ben Myers wrote:
> >> >Hey Christoph,
> >> >
> >> >On Fri, Nov 08, 2013 at 11:34:24AM -0800, Christoph Hellwig wrote:
> >> >>On Fri, Nov 08, 2013 at 12:03:37PM -0600, Ben Myers wrote:
> >> >>>Mark is replacing Alex as my backup because Alex is really busy at
> >> >>>Linaro and asked to be taken off awhile ago. The holiday season is
> >> >>>coming up and I fully intend to go off my meds, turn in to Fonzy the
> >> >>>bear, and eat my hat. I need someone to watch the shop while I'm off
> >> >>>exploring on Mars. I trust Mark to do that because he is totally
> >> >>>awesome.
> >> >>
> >> >>Doing this as an unilateral decisions is not something that will win you
> >> >>a fan base.
> >> >It's posted for review.
> >> >
> >> >>While we never had anything reassembling a democracy in Linux Kernel
> >> >>development making decisions without even contacting the major
> >> >>contributor is wrong, twice so if the maintainer is a relatively minor
> >> >>contributor to start with.
> >> >>
> >> >>Just because it recent came up elsewhere I'd like to recite the
> >> >>definition from Trond here again:
> >> >>
> >> >> http://lists.linux-foundation.org/pipermail/ksummit-2012-discuss/2012-June/000066.html
> >> >>
> >> >>By many of the creative roles enlisted there it's clear that Dave should
> >> >>be the maintainer. He's been the main contributor and chief architect
> >> >>for XFS for many year, while the maintainers came and went at the mercy
> >> >>of SGI. This is not meant to bad mouth either of you as I think you're
> >> >>doing a reasonably good job compared to other maintainers, but at the
> >> >>same time the direction is set by other people that have a much longer
> >> >>involvement with the project, and having them officially in control
> >> >>would help us forward a lot. It would also avoid having to spend
> >> >>considerable resources to train every new generation of SGI maintainer.
> >> >>
> >> >>Coming to and end I would like to maintain Dave Chinner as the primary
> >> >>XFS maintainer for all the work he has done as biggest contributor and
> >> >>architect of XFS since longer than I can remember, and I would love to
> >> >>retain Ben Myers as a co-maintainer for all the good work he has done
> >> >>maintaining and reviewing patches since November 2011.
> >> >I think we're doing a decent job too. So thanks for that much at least. ;)
> >> >>I would also like to use this post as a public venue to condemn the
> >> >>unilateral smokey backroom decisions about XFS maintainership that SGI is
> >> >>trying to enforce on the community.
> >> >That really didn't happen Christoph. It's not in my tree or in a pull request.
> >> >
> >> >Linus, let me know what you want to do. I do think we're doing a fair job over
> >> >here, and (geez) I'm just trying to add Mark as my backup since Alex is too
> >> >busy. I know the RH people want more control, and that's understandable, but
> >> >they really don't need to replace me to get their code in. Ouch.
> >> >
> >> >Thanks,
> >> > Ben
> >>
> >> Christoph is not a Red Hat person.
> >>
> >> Jeff is from Oracle.
> >>
> >> This is not a Red Hat vs SGI thing,
> >
> > Sorry if my read on that was wrong.
> >
> >> Dave simply has earned the right
> >> to take on the formal leadership role of maintainer.
> >
> > Then we're gonna need some Reviewed-bys. ;)
> >
> > From: Ben Myers <bpm@sgi.com>
> >
> > xfs: update maintainers
> >
> > Add Dave as maintainer of XFS.
> >
> > Signed-off-by: Ben Myers <bpm@sgi.com>
> > ---
> > MAINTAINERS | 2 +-
> > 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-)
> >
> > Index: b/MAINTAINERS
> > ===================================================================
> > --- a/MAINTAINERS 2013-11-08 15:20:18.935186245 -0600
> > +++ b/MAINTAINERS 2013-11-08 15:22:50.685245977 -0600
> > @@ -9387,8 +9387,8 @@ F: drivers/xen/*swiotlb*
> >
> > XFS FILESYSTEM
> > P: Silicon Graphics Inc
> > +M: Dave Chinner <dchinner@fromorbit.com>
> Use his personal private mail account? I guess that you should ask for
> his opinion at first, or it is more appropriate that he submit this
> patch by himself.
>
Indeed. And does he even want the job? I heard Linus say in a recent
interview that being a maintainer is a $#!+ job. Is it really best for the
most active developers to be burdened with that extra work?
(hmm.. maybe I should add Dave to the Cc here .. but no-one else did so best
leave him alone to code in peace).
NeilBrown
[-- Attachment #2: signature.asc --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 828 bytes --]
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 60+ messages in thread
* Re: [PATCH] update xfs maintainers
@ 2013-11-08 23:44 ` NeilBrown
0 siblings, 0 replies; 60+ messages in thread
From: NeilBrown @ 2013-11-08 23:44 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Zhi Yong Wu
Cc: elder, Mark Tinguely, Linus Torvalds, linux-kernel, xfstests,
Christoph Hellwig, Ben Myers, Ric Wheeler
[-- Attachment #1.1: Type: text/plain, Size: 4844 bytes --]
On Sat, 9 Nov 2013 06:59:00 +0800 Zhi Yong Wu <zwu.kernel@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Sat, Nov 9, 2013 at 6:03 AM, Ben Myers <bpm@sgi.com> wrote:
> > Hey Ric,
> >
> > On Fri, Nov 08, 2013 at 03:50:21PM -0500, Ric Wheeler wrote:
> >> On 11/08/2013 03:46 PM, Ben Myers wrote:
> >> >Hey Christoph,
> >> >
> >> >On Fri, Nov 08, 2013 at 11:34:24AM -0800, Christoph Hellwig wrote:
> >> >>On Fri, Nov 08, 2013 at 12:03:37PM -0600, Ben Myers wrote:
> >> >>>Mark is replacing Alex as my backup because Alex is really busy at
> >> >>>Linaro and asked to be taken off awhile ago. The holiday season is
> >> >>>coming up and I fully intend to go off my meds, turn in to Fonzy the
> >> >>>bear, and eat my hat. I need someone to watch the shop while I'm off
> >> >>>exploring on Mars. I trust Mark to do that because he is totally
> >> >>>awesome.
> >> >>
> >> >>Doing this as an unilateral decisions is not something that will win you
> >> >>a fan base.
> >> >It's posted for review.
> >> >
> >> >>While we never had anything reassembling a democracy in Linux Kernel
> >> >>development making decisions without even contacting the major
> >> >>contributor is wrong, twice so if the maintainer is a relatively minor
> >> >>contributor to start with.
> >> >>
> >> >>Just because it recent came up elsewhere I'd like to recite the
> >> >>definition from Trond here again:
> >> >>
> >> >> http://lists.linux-foundation.org/pipermail/ksummit-2012-discuss/2012-June/000066.html
> >> >>
> >> >>By many of the creative roles enlisted there it's clear that Dave should
> >> >>be the maintainer. He's been the main contributor and chief architect
> >> >>for XFS for many year, while the maintainers came and went at the mercy
> >> >>of SGI. This is not meant to bad mouth either of you as I think you're
> >> >>doing a reasonably good job compared to other maintainers, but at the
> >> >>same time the direction is set by other people that have a much longer
> >> >>involvement with the project, and having them officially in control
> >> >>would help us forward a lot. It would also avoid having to spend
> >> >>considerable resources to train every new generation of SGI maintainer.
> >> >>
> >> >>Coming to and end I would like to maintain Dave Chinner as the primary
> >> >>XFS maintainer for all the work he has done as biggest contributor and
> >> >>architect of XFS since longer than I can remember, and I would love to
> >> >>retain Ben Myers as a co-maintainer for all the good work he has done
> >> >>maintaining and reviewing patches since November 2011.
> >> >I think we're doing a decent job too. So thanks for that much at least. ;)
> >> >>I would also like to use this post as a public venue to condemn the
> >> >>unilateral smokey backroom decisions about XFS maintainership that SGI is
> >> >>trying to enforce on the community.
> >> >That really didn't happen Christoph. It's not in my tree or in a pull request.
> >> >
> >> >Linus, let me know what you want to do. I do think we're doing a fair job over
> >> >here, and (geez) I'm just trying to add Mark as my backup since Alex is too
> >> >busy. I know the RH people want more control, and that's understandable, but
> >> >they really don't need to replace me to get their code in. Ouch.
> >> >
> >> >Thanks,
> >> > Ben
> >>
> >> Christoph is not a Red Hat person.
> >>
> >> Jeff is from Oracle.
> >>
> >> This is not a Red Hat vs SGI thing,
> >
> > Sorry if my read on that was wrong.
> >
> >> Dave simply has earned the right
> >> to take on the formal leadership role of maintainer.
> >
> > Then we're gonna need some Reviewed-bys. ;)
> >
> > From: Ben Myers <bpm@sgi.com>
> >
> > xfs: update maintainers
> >
> > Add Dave as maintainer of XFS.
> >
> > Signed-off-by: Ben Myers <bpm@sgi.com>
> > ---
> > MAINTAINERS | 2 +-
> > 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-)
> >
> > Index: b/MAINTAINERS
> > ===================================================================
> > --- a/MAINTAINERS 2013-11-08 15:20:18.935186245 -0600
> > +++ b/MAINTAINERS 2013-11-08 15:22:50.685245977 -0600
> > @@ -9387,8 +9387,8 @@ F: drivers/xen/*swiotlb*
> >
> > XFS FILESYSTEM
> > P: Silicon Graphics Inc
> > +M: Dave Chinner <dchinner@fromorbit.com>
> Use his personal private mail account? I guess that you should ask for
> his opinion at first, or it is more appropriate that he submit this
> patch by himself.
>
Indeed. And does he even want the job? I heard Linus say in a recent
interview that being a maintainer is a $#!+ job. Is it really best for the
most active developers to be burdened with that extra work?
(hmm.. maybe I should add Dave to the Cc here .. but no-one else did so best
leave him alone to code in peace).
NeilBrown
[-- Attachment #1.2: signature.asc --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 828 bytes --]
[-- Attachment #2: Type: text/plain, Size: 121 bytes --]
_______________________________________________
xfs mailing list
xfs@oss.sgi.com
http://oss.sgi.com/mailman/listinfo/xfs
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 60+ messages in thread
* Re: [PATCH] update xfs maintainers
2013-11-08 23:32 ` Ric Wheeler
@ 2013-11-09 23:17 ` Ben Myers
-1 siblings, 0 replies; 60+ messages in thread
From: Ben Myers @ 2013-11-09 23:17 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Ric Wheeler
Cc: Linus Torvalds, Christoph Hellwig, xfs, elder, Mark Tinguely,
linux-kernel
On Fri, Nov 08, 2013 at 06:32:33PM -0500, Ric Wheeler wrote:
> On 11/08/2013 05:17 PM, Ben Myers wrote:
> >Hey Ric,
> >
> >On Fri, Nov 08, 2013 at 05:07:45PM -0500, Ric Wheeler wrote:
> >>On 11/08/2013 05:03 PM, Ben Myers wrote:
> >>>Hey Ric,
> >>>
> >>>On Fri, Nov 08, 2013 at 03:50:21PM -0500, Ric Wheeler wrote:
> >>>>On 11/08/2013 03:46 PM, Ben Myers wrote:
> >>>>>Hey Christoph,
> >>>>>
> >>>>>On Fri, Nov 08, 2013 at 11:34:24AM -0800, Christoph Hellwig wrote:
> >>>>>>On Fri, Nov 08, 2013 at 12:03:37PM -0600, Ben Myers wrote:
> >>>>>>>Mark is replacing Alex as my backup because Alex is really busy at
> >>>>>>>Linaro and asked to be taken off awhile ago. The holiday season is
> >>>>>>>coming up and I fully intend to go off my meds, turn in to Fonzy the
> >>>>>>>bear, and eat my hat. I need someone to watch the shop while I'm off
> >>>>>>>exploring on Mars. I trust Mark to do that because he is totally
> >>>>>>>awesome.
> >>>>>>Doing this as an unilateral decisions is not something that will win you
> >>>>>>a fan base.
> >>>>>It's posted for review.
> >>>>>
> >>>>>>While we never had anything reassembling a democracy in Linux Kernel
> >>>>>>development making decisions without even contacting the major
> >>>>>>contributor is wrong, twice so if the maintainer is a relatively minor
> >>>>>>contributor to start with.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>Just because it recent came up elsewhere I'd like to recite the
> >>>>>>definition from Trond here again:
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> http://lists.linux-foundation.org/pipermail/ksummit-2012-discuss/2012-June/000066.html
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>By many of the creative roles enlisted there it's clear that Dave should
> >>>>>>be the maintainer. He's been the main contributor and chief architect
> >>>>>>for XFS for many year, while the maintainers came and went at the mercy
> >>>>>>of SGI. This is not meant to bad mouth either of you as I think you're
> >>>>>>doing a reasonably good job compared to other maintainers, but at the
> >>>>>>same time the direction is set by other people that have a much longer
> >>>>>>involvement with the project, and having them officially in control
> >>>>>>would help us forward a lot. It would also avoid having to spend
> >>>>>>considerable resources to train every new generation of SGI maintainer.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>Coming to and end I would like to maintain Dave Chinner as the primary
> >>>>>>XFS maintainer for all the work he has done as biggest contributor and
> >>>>>>architect of XFS since longer than I can remember, and I would love to
> >>>>>>retain Ben Myers as a co-maintainer for all the good work he has done
> >>>>>>maintaining and reviewing patches since November 2011.
> >>>>>I think we're doing a decent job too. So thanks for that much at least. ;)
> >>>>>>I would also like to use this post as a public venue to condemn the
> >>>>>>unilateral smokey backroom decisions about XFS maintainership that SGI is
> >>>>>>trying to enforce on the community.
> >>>>>That really didn't happen Christoph. It's not in my tree or in a pull request.
> >>>>>
> >>>>>Linus, let me know what you want to do. I do think we're doing a fair job over
> >>>>>here, and (geez) I'm just trying to add Mark as my backup since Alex is too
> >>>>>busy. I know the RH people want more control, and that's understandable, but
> >>>>>they really don't need to replace me to get their code in. Ouch.
> >>>>>
> >>>>>Thanks,
> >>>>> Ben
> >>>>Christoph is not a Red Hat person.
> >>>>
> >>>>Jeff is from Oracle.
> >>>>
> >>>>This is not a Red Hat vs SGI thing,
> >>>Sorry if my read on that was wrong.
> >>I do appreciate the work and effort you and the SGI team put in but
> >>think that this will be a good way to keep the community happier and
> >>even more productive going forward.
> >>
> >>>>Dave simply has earned the right
> >>>>to take on the formal leadership role of maintainer.
> >>>Then we're gonna need some Reviewed-bys. ;)
> >>Those should come from the developers, thanks!
> >I actually do need your Reviewed-by. We'll try and get this one in 3.13. ;)
> >
> >Thanks,
> > Ben
>
> Happy to do that - I do think that Dave mostly posts from his
> redhat.com account, but he can comment once he gets back online.
>
> Reviewed-by: Ric Wheeler <rwheeler@redhat.com>
Thanks Ric. ;)
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 60+ messages in thread
* Re: [PATCH] update xfs maintainers
@ 2013-11-09 23:17 ` Ben Myers
0 siblings, 0 replies; 60+ messages in thread
From: Ben Myers @ 2013-11-09 23:17 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Ric Wheeler
Cc: elder, Mark Tinguely, linux-kernel, xfs, Christoph Hellwig,
Linus Torvalds
On Fri, Nov 08, 2013 at 06:32:33PM -0500, Ric Wheeler wrote:
> On 11/08/2013 05:17 PM, Ben Myers wrote:
> >Hey Ric,
> >
> >On Fri, Nov 08, 2013 at 05:07:45PM -0500, Ric Wheeler wrote:
> >>On 11/08/2013 05:03 PM, Ben Myers wrote:
> >>>Hey Ric,
> >>>
> >>>On Fri, Nov 08, 2013 at 03:50:21PM -0500, Ric Wheeler wrote:
> >>>>On 11/08/2013 03:46 PM, Ben Myers wrote:
> >>>>>Hey Christoph,
> >>>>>
> >>>>>On Fri, Nov 08, 2013 at 11:34:24AM -0800, Christoph Hellwig wrote:
> >>>>>>On Fri, Nov 08, 2013 at 12:03:37PM -0600, Ben Myers wrote:
> >>>>>>>Mark is replacing Alex as my backup because Alex is really busy at
> >>>>>>>Linaro and asked to be taken off awhile ago. The holiday season is
> >>>>>>>coming up and I fully intend to go off my meds, turn in to Fonzy the
> >>>>>>>bear, and eat my hat. I need someone to watch the shop while I'm off
> >>>>>>>exploring on Mars. I trust Mark to do that because he is totally
> >>>>>>>awesome.
> >>>>>>Doing this as an unilateral decisions is not something that will win you
> >>>>>>a fan base.
> >>>>>It's posted for review.
> >>>>>
> >>>>>>While we never had anything reassembling a democracy in Linux Kernel
> >>>>>>development making decisions without even contacting the major
> >>>>>>contributor is wrong, twice so if the maintainer is a relatively minor
> >>>>>>contributor to start with.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>Just because it recent came up elsewhere I'd like to recite the
> >>>>>>definition from Trond here again:
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> http://lists.linux-foundation.org/pipermail/ksummit-2012-discuss/2012-June/000066.html
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>By many of the creative roles enlisted there it's clear that Dave should
> >>>>>>be the maintainer. He's been the main contributor and chief architect
> >>>>>>for XFS for many year, while the maintainers came and went at the mercy
> >>>>>>of SGI. This is not meant to bad mouth either of you as I think you're
> >>>>>>doing a reasonably good job compared to other maintainers, but at the
> >>>>>>same time the direction is set by other people that have a much longer
> >>>>>>involvement with the project, and having them officially in control
> >>>>>>would help us forward a lot. It would also avoid having to spend
> >>>>>>considerable resources to train every new generation of SGI maintainer.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>Coming to and end I would like to maintain Dave Chinner as the primary
> >>>>>>XFS maintainer for all the work he has done as biggest contributor and
> >>>>>>architect of XFS since longer than I can remember, and I would love to
> >>>>>>retain Ben Myers as a co-maintainer for all the good work he has done
> >>>>>>maintaining and reviewing patches since November 2011.
> >>>>>I think we're doing a decent job too. So thanks for that much at least. ;)
> >>>>>>I would also like to use this post as a public venue to condemn the
> >>>>>>unilateral smokey backroom decisions about XFS maintainership that SGI is
> >>>>>>trying to enforce on the community.
> >>>>>That really didn't happen Christoph. It's not in my tree or in a pull request.
> >>>>>
> >>>>>Linus, let me know what you want to do. I do think we're doing a fair job over
> >>>>>here, and (geez) I'm just trying to add Mark as my backup since Alex is too
> >>>>>busy. I know the RH people want more control, and that's understandable, but
> >>>>>they really don't need to replace me to get their code in. Ouch.
> >>>>>
> >>>>>Thanks,
> >>>>> Ben
> >>>>Christoph is not a Red Hat person.
> >>>>
> >>>>Jeff is from Oracle.
> >>>>
> >>>>This is not a Red Hat vs SGI thing,
> >>>Sorry if my read on that was wrong.
> >>I do appreciate the work and effort you and the SGI team put in but
> >>think that this will be a good way to keep the community happier and
> >>even more productive going forward.
> >>
> >>>>Dave simply has earned the right
> >>>>to take on the formal leadership role of maintainer.
> >>>Then we're gonna need some Reviewed-bys. ;)
> >>Those should come from the developers, thanks!
> >I actually do need your Reviewed-by. We'll try and get this one in 3.13. ;)
> >
> >Thanks,
> > Ben
>
> Happy to do that - I do think that Dave mostly posts from his
> redhat.com account, but he can comment once he gets back online.
>
> Reviewed-by: Ric Wheeler <rwheeler@redhat.com>
Thanks Ric. ;)
_______________________________________________
xfs mailing list
xfs@oss.sgi.com
http://oss.sgi.com/mailman/listinfo/xfs
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 60+ messages in thread
* Re: [PATCH] update xfs maintainers
2013-11-08 23:44 ` NeilBrown
@ 2013-11-09 23:51 ` Ben Myers
-1 siblings, 0 replies; 60+ messages in thread
From: Ben Myers @ 2013-11-09 23:51 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: NeilBrown, Dave Chinner
Cc: Zhi Yong Wu, Ric Wheeler, elder, Mark Tinguely, linux-kernel,
xfstests, Christoph Hellwig, Linus Torvalds
Hey Neil,
On Sat, Nov 09, 2013 at 10:44:24AM +1100, NeilBrown wrote:
> On Sat, 9 Nov 2013 06:59:00 +0800 Zhi Yong Wu <zwu.kernel@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > On Sat, Nov 9, 2013 at 6:03 AM, Ben Myers <bpm@sgi.com> wrote:
> > > Hey Ric,
> > >
> > > On Fri, Nov 08, 2013 at 03:50:21PM -0500, Ric Wheeler wrote:
> > >> On 11/08/2013 03:46 PM, Ben Myers wrote:
> > >> >Hey Christoph,
> > >> >
> > >> >On Fri, Nov 08, 2013 at 11:34:24AM -0800, Christoph Hellwig wrote:
> > >> >>On Fri, Nov 08, 2013 at 12:03:37PM -0600, Ben Myers wrote:
> > >> >>>Mark is replacing Alex as my backup because Alex is really busy at
> > >> >>>Linaro and asked to be taken off awhile ago. The holiday season is
> > >> >>>coming up and I fully intend to go off my meds, turn in to Fonzy the
> > >> >>>bear, and eat my hat. I need someone to watch the shop while I'm off
> > >> >>>exploring on Mars. I trust Mark to do that because he is totally
> > >> >>>awesome.
> > >> >>
> > >> >>Doing this as an unilateral decisions is not something that will win you
> > >> >>a fan base.
> > >> >It's posted for review.
> > >> >
> > >> >>While we never had anything reassembling a democracy in Linux Kernel
> > >> >>development making decisions without even contacting the major
> > >> >>contributor is wrong, twice so if the maintainer is a relatively minor
> > >> >>contributor to start with.
> > >> >>
> > >> >>Just because it recent came up elsewhere I'd like to recite the
> > >> >>definition from Trond here again:
> > >> >>
> > >> >> http://lists.linux-foundation.org/pipermail/ksummit-2012-discuss/2012-June/000066.html
> > >> >>
> > >> >>By many of the creative roles enlisted there it's clear that Dave should
> > >> >>be the maintainer. He's been the main contributor and chief architect
> > >> >>for XFS for many year, while the maintainers came and went at the mercy
> > >> >>of SGI. This is not meant to bad mouth either of you as I think you're
> > >> >>doing a reasonably good job compared to other maintainers, but at the
> > >> >>same time the direction is set by other people that have a much longer
> > >> >>involvement with the project, and having them officially in control
> > >> >>would help us forward a lot. It would also avoid having to spend
> > >> >>considerable resources to train every new generation of SGI maintainer.
> > >> >>
> > >> >>Coming to and end I would like to maintain Dave Chinner as the primary
> > >> >>XFS maintainer for all the work he has done as biggest contributor and
> > >> >>architect of XFS since longer than I can remember, and I would love to
> > >> >>retain Ben Myers as a co-maintainer for all the good work he has done
> > >> >>maintaining and reviewing patches since November 2011.
> > >> >I think we're doing a decent job too. So thanks for that much at least. ;)
> > >> >>I would also like to use this post as a public venue to condemn the
> > >> >>unilateral smokey backroom decisions about XFS maintainership that SGI is
> > >> >>trying to enforce on the community.
> > >> >That really didn't happen Christoph. It's not in my tree or in a pull request.
> > >> >
> > >> >Linus, let me know what you want to do. I do think we're doing a fair job over
> > >> >here, and (geez) I'm just trying to add Mark as my backup since Alex is too
> > >> >busy. I know the RH people want more control, and that's understandable, but
> > >> >they really don't need to replace me to get their code in. Ouch.
> > >> >
> > >> >Thanks,
> > >> > Ben
> > >>
> > >> Christoph is not a Red Hat person.
> > >>
> > >> Jeff is from Oracle.
> > >>
> > >> This is not a Red Hat vs SGI thing,
> > >
> > > Sorry if my read on that was wrong.
> > >
> > >> Dave simply has earned the right
> > >> to take on the formal leadership role of maintainer.
> > >
> > > Then we're gonna need some Reviewed-bys. ;)
> > >
> > > From: Ben Myers <bpm@sgi.com>
> > >
> > > xfs: update maintainers
> > >
> > > Add Dave as maintainer of XFS.
> > >
> > > Signed-off-by: Ben Myers <bpm@sgi.com>
> > > ---
> > > MAINTAINERS | 2 +-
> > > 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-)
> > >
> > > Index: b/MAINTAINERS
> > > ===================================================================
> > > --- a/MAINTAINERS 2013-11-08 15:20:18.935186245 -0600
> > > +++ b/MAINTAINERS 2013-11-08 15:22:50.685245977 -0600
> > > @@ -9387,8 +9387,8 @@ F: drivers/xen/*swiotlb*
> > >
> > > XFS FILESYSTEM
> > > P: Silicon Graphics Inc
> > > +M: Dave Chinner <dchinner@fromorbit.com>
> > Use his personal private mail account? I guess that you should ask for
> > his opinion at first, or it is more appropriate that he submit this
> > patch by himself.
If y'all don't mind, I'd like to have authored this one. ;)
> Indeed. And does he even want the job? I heard Linus say in a recent
> interview that being a maintainer is a $#!+ job.
I've found that it can be a little bit stressful sometimes and it tends to
crowd out feature work, so I guess I agree with him. It turns out to be an
excellent weight loss plan.
> Is it really best for the
> most active developers to be burdened with that extra work?
>
> (hmm.. maybe I should add Dave to the Cc here .. but no-one else did so best
> leave him alone to code in peace).
Dave, what do you want to do here? Which email? What sort of arrangement? I
gather that you probably do want the job, and I know you'll be fantastic. Do
you want to do it all yourself? Maybe split it up?
Thanks,
Ben
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 60+ messages in thread
* Re: [PATCH] update xfs maintainers
@ 2013-11-09 23:51 ` Ben Myers
0 siblings, 0 replies; 60+ messages in thread
From: Ben Myers @ 2013-11-09 23:51 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: NeilBrown, Dave Chinner
Cc: Christoph Hellwig, elder, Mark Tinguely, Linus Torvalds,
linux-kernel, xfstests, Zhi Yong Wu, Ric Wheeler
Hey Neil,
On Sat, Nov 09, 2013 at 10:44:24AM +1100, NeilBrown wrote:
> On Sat, 9 Nov 2013 06:59:00 +0800 Zhi Yong Wu <zwu.kernel@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > On Sat, Nov 9, 2013 at 6:03 AM, Ben Myers <bpm@sgi.com> wrote:
> > > Hey Ric,
> > >
> > > On Fri, Nov 08, 2013 at 03:50:21PM -0500, Ric Wheeler wrote:
> > >> On 11/08/2013 03:46 PM, Ben Myers wrote:
> > >> >Hey Christoph,
> > >> >
> > >> >On Fri, Nov 08, 2013 at 11:34:24AM -0800, Christoph Hellwig wrote:
> > >> >>On Fri, Nov 08, 2013 at 12:03:37PM -0600, Ben Myers wrote:
> > >> >>>Mark is replacing Alex as my backup because Alex is really busy at
> > >> >>>Linaro and asked to be taken off awhile ago. The holiday season is
> > >> >>>coming up and I fully intend to go off my meds, turn in to Fonzy the
> > >> >>>bear, and eat my hat. I need someone to watch the shop while I'm off
> > >> >>>exploring on Mars. I trust Mark to do that because he is totally
> > >> >>>awesome.
> > >> >>
> > >> >>Doing this as an unilateral decisions is not something that will win you
> > >> >>a fan base.
> > >> >It's posted for review.
> > >> >
> > >> >>While we never had anything reassembling a democracy in Linux Kernel
> > >> >>development making decisions without even contacting the major
> > >> >>contributor is wrong, twice so if the maintainer is a relatively minor
> > >> >>contributor to start with.
> > >> >>
> > >> >>Just because it recent came up elsewhere I'd like to recite the
> > >> >>definition from Trond here again:
> > >> >>
> > >> >> http://lists.linux-foundation.org/pipermail/ksummit-2012-discuss/2012-June/000066.html
> > >> >>
> > >> >>By many of the creative roles enlisted there it's clear that Dave should
> > >> >>be the maintainer. He's been the main contributor and chief architect
> > >> >>for XFS for many year, while the maintainers came and went at the mercy
> > >> >>of SGI. This is not meant to bad mouth either of you as I think you're
> > >> >>doing a reasonably good job compared to other maintainers, but at the
> > >> >>same time the direction is set by other people that have a much longer
> > >> >>involvement with the project, and having them officially in control
> > >> >>would help us forward a lot. It would also avoid having to spend
> > >> >>considerable resources to train every new generation of SGI maintainer.
> > >> >>
> > >> >>Coming to and end I would like to maintain Dave Chinner as the primary
> > >> >>XFS maintainer for all the work he has done as biggest contributor and
> > >> >>architect of XFS since longer than I can remember, and I would love to
> > >> >>retain Ben Myers as a co-maintainer for all the good work he has done
> > >> >>maintaining and reviewing patches since November 2011.
> > >> >I think we're doing a decent job too. So thanks for that much at least. ;)
> > >> >>I would also like to use this post as a public venue to condemn the
> > >> >>unilateral smokey backroom decisions about XFS maintainership that SGI is
> > >> >>trying to enforce on the community.
> > >> >That really didn't happen Christoph. It's not in my tree or in a pull request.
> > >> >
> > >> >Linus, let me know what you want to do. I do think we're doing a fair job over
> > >> >here, and (geez) I'm just trying to add Mark as my backup since Alex is too
> > >> >busy. I know the RH people want more control, and that's understandable, but
> > >> >they really don't need to replace me to get their code in. Ouch.
> > >> >
> > >> >Thanks,
> > >> > Ben
> > >>
> > >> Christoph is not a Red Hat person.
> > >>
> > >> Jeff is from Oracle.
> > >>
> > >> This is not a Red Hat vs SGI thing,
> > >
> > > Sorry if my read on that was wrong.
> > >
> > >> Dave simply has earned the right
> > >> to take on the formal leadership role of maintainer.
> > >
> > > Then we're gonna need some Reviewed-bys. ;)
> > >
> > > From: Ben Myers <bpm@sgi.com>
> > >
> > > xfs: update maintainers
> > >
> > > Add Dave as maintainer of XFS.
> > >
> > > Signed-off-by: Ben Myers <bpm@sgi.com>
> > > ---
> > > MAINTAINERS | 2 +-
> > > 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-)
> > >
> > > Index: b/MAINTAINERS
> > > ===================================================================
> > > --- a/MAINTAINERS 2013-11-08 15:20:18.935186245 -0600
> > > +++ b/MAINTAINERS 2013-11-08 15:22:50.685245977 -0600
> > > @@ -9387,8 +9387,8 @@ F: drivers/xen/*swiotlb*
> > >
> > > XFS FILESYSTEM
> > > P: Silicon Graphics Inc
> > > +M: Dave Chinner <dchinner@fromorbit.com>
> > Use his personal private mail account? I guess that you should ask for
> > his opinion at first, or it is more appropriate that he submit this
> > patch by himself.
If y'all don't mind, I'd like to have authored this one. ;)
> Indeed. And does he even want the job? I heard Linus say in a recent
> interview that being a maintainer is a $#!+ job.
I've found that it can be a little bit stressful sometimes and it tends to
crowd out feature work, so I guess I agree with him. It turns out to be an
excellent weight loss plan.
> Is it really best for the
> most active developers to be burdened with that extra work?
>
> (hmm.. maybe I should add Dave to the Cc here .. but no-one else did so best
> leave him alone to code in peace).
Dave, what do you want to do here? Which email? What sort of arrangement? I
gather that you probably do want the job, and I know you'll be fantastic. Do
you want to do it all yourself? Maybe split it up?
Thanks,
Ben
_______________________________________________
xfs mailing list
xfs@oss.sgi.com
http://oss.sgi.com/mailman/listinfo/xfs
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 60+ messages in thread
* Re: [PATCH] update xfs maintainers
2013-11-09 23:51 ` Ben Myers
@ 2013-11-10 0:30 ` Ben Myers
-1 siblings, 0 replies; 60+ messages in thread
From: Ben Myers @ 2013-11-10 0:30 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: NeilBrown, Dave Chinner
Cc: Christoph Hellwig, elder, Mark Tinguely, Linus Torvalds,
linux-kernel, xfstests, Zhi Yong Wu, Ric Wheeler
Dave,
On Sat, Nov 09, 2013 at 05:51:30PM -0600, Ben Myers wrote:
> Hey Neil,
>
> On Sat, Nov 09, 2013 at 10:44:24AM +1100, NeilBrown wrote:
> > On Sat, 9 Nov 2013 06:59:00 +0800 Zhi Yong Wu <zwu.kernel@gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> > > On Sat, Nov 9, 2013 at 6:03 AM, Ben Myers <bpm@sgi.com> wrote:
> > > > Hey Ric,
> > > >
> > > > On Fri, Nov 08, 2013 at 03:50:21PM -0500, Ric Wheeler wrote:
> > > >> On 11/08/2013 03:46 PM, Ben Myers wrote:
> > > >> >Hey Christoph,
> > > >> >
> > > >> >On Fri, Nov 08, 2013 at 11:34:24AM -0800, Christoph Hellwig wrote:
> > > >> >>On Fri, Nov 08, 2013 at 12:03:37PM -0600, Ben Myers wrote:
> > > >> >>>Mark is replacing Alex as my backup because Alex is really busy at
> > > >> >>>Linaro and asked to be taken off awhile ago. The holiday season is
> > > >> >>>coming up and I fully intend to go off my meds, turn in to Fonzy the
> > > >> >>>bear, and eat my hat. I need someone to watch the shop while I'm off
> > > >> >>>exploring on Mars. I trust Mark to do that because he is totally
> > > >> >>>awesome.
> > > >> >>
> > > >> >>Doing this as an unilateral decisions is not something that will win you
> > > >> >>a fan base.
> > > >> >It's posted for review.
> > > >> >
> > > >> >>While we never had anything reassembling a democracy in Linux Kernel
> > > >> >>development making decisions without even contacting the major
> > > >> >>contributor is wrong, twice so if the maintainer is a relatively minor
> > > >> >>contributor to start with.
> > > >> >>
> > > >> >>Just because it recent came up elsewhere I'd like to recite the
> > > >> >>definition from Trond here again:
> > > >> >>
> > > >> >> http://lists.linux-foundation.org/pipermail/ksummit-2012-discuss/2012-June/000066.html
> > > >> >>
> > > >> >>By many of the creative roles enlisted there it's clear that Dave should
> > > >> >>be the maintainer. He's been the main contributor and chief architect
> > > >> >>for XFS for many year, while the maintainers came and went at the mercy
> > > >> >>of SGI. This is not meant to bad mouth either of you as I think you're
> > > >> >>doing a reasonably good job compared to other maintainers, but at the
> > > >> >>same time the direction is set by other people that have a much longer
> > > >> >>involvement with the project, and having them officially in control
> > > >> >>would help us forward a lot. It would also avoid having to spend
> > > >> >>considerable resources to train every new generation of SGI maintainer.
> > > >> >>
> > > >> >>Coming to and end I would like to maintain Dave Chinner as the primary
> > > >> >>XFS maintainer for all the work he has done as biggest contributor and
> > > >> >>architect of XFS since longer than I can remember, and I would love to
> > > >> >>retain Ben Myers as a co-maintainer for all the good work he has done
> > > >> >>maintaining and reviewing patches since November 2011.
> > > >> >I think we're doing a decent job too. So thanks for that much at least. ;)
> > > >> >>I would also like to use this post as a public venue to condemn the
> > > >> >>unilateral smokey backroom decisions about XFS maintainership that SGI is
> > > >> >>trying to enforce on the community.
> > > >> >That really didn't happen Christoph. It's not in my tree or in a pull request.
> > > >> >
> > > >> >Linus, let me know what you want to do. I do think we're doing a fair job over
> > > >> >here, and (geez) I'm just trying to add Mark as my backup since Alex is too
> > > >> >busy. I know the RH people want more control, and that's understandable, but
> > > >> >they really don't need to replace me to get their code in. Ouch.
> > > >> >
> > > >> >Thanks,
> > > >> > Ben
> > > >>
> > > >> Christoph is not a Red Hat person.
> > > >>
> > > >> Jeff is from Oracle.
> > > >>
> > > >> This is not a Red Hat vs SGI thing,
> > > >
> > > > Sorry if my read on that was wrong.
> > > >
> > > >> Dave simply has earned the right
> > > >> to take on the formal leadership role of maintainer.
> > > >
> > > > Then we're gonna need some Reviewed-bys. ;)
> > > >
> > > > From: Ben Myers <bpm@sgi.com>
> > > >
> > > > xfs: update maintainers
> > > >
> > > > Add Dave as maintainer of XFS.
> > > >
> > > > Signed-off-by: Ben Myers <bpm@sgi.com>
> > > > ---
> > > > MAINTAINERS | 2 +-
> > > > 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-)
> > > >
> > > > Index: b/MAINTAINERS
> > > > ===================================================================
> > > > --- a/MAINTAINERS 2013-11-08 15:20:18.935186245 -0600
> > > > +++ b/MAINTAINERS 2013-11-08 15:22:50.685245977 -0600
> > > > @@ -9387,8 +9387,8 @@ F: drivers/xen/*swiotlb*
> > > >
> > > > XFS FILESYSTEM
> > > > P: Silicon Graphics Inc
> > > > +M: Dave Chinner <dchinner@fromorbit.com>
> > > Use his personal private mail account? I guess that you should ask for
> > > his opinion at first, or it is more appropriate that he submit this
> > > patch by himself.
>
> If y'all don't mind, I'd like to have authored this one. ;)
>
> > Indeed. And does he even want the job? I heard Linus say in a recent
> > interview that being a maintainer is a $#!+ job.
>
> I've found that it can be a little bit stressful sometimes and it tends to
> crowd out feature work, so I guess I agree with him. It turns out to be an
> excellent weight loss plan.
>
> > Is it really best for the
> > most active developers to be burdened with that extra work?
> >
> > (hmm.. maybe I should add Dave to the Cc here .. but no-one else did so best
> > leave him alone to code in peace).
>
> Dave, what do you want to do here? Which email? What sort of arrangement? I
> gather that you probably do want the job, and I know you'll be fantastic. Do
> you want to do it all yourself? Maybe split it up?
I should have also suggested that we can add you to this file and just keep our
existing arrangements. That seems appropriate to me, befitting of your
achievements, the work you've been doing, and I'm willing to keep on as I am.
Regards,
Ben
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 60+ messages in thread
* Re: [PATCH] update xfs maintainers
@ 2013-11-10 0:30 ` Ben Myers
0 siblings, 0 replies; 60+ messages in thread
From: Ben Myers @ 2013-11-10 0:30 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: NeilBrown, Dave Chinner
Cc: Zhi Yong Wu, elder, Mark Tinguely, Ric Wheeler, linux-kernel,
xfstests, Christoph Hellwig, Linus Torvalds
Dave,
On Sat, Nov 09, 2013 at 05:51:30PM -0600, Ben Myers wrote:
> Hey Neil,
>
> On Sat, Nov 09, 2013 at 10:44:24AM +1100, NeilBrown wrote:
> > On Sat, 9 Nov 2013 06:59:00 +0800 Zhi Yong Wu <zwu.kernel@gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> > > On Sat, Nov 9, 2013 at 6:03 AM, Ben Myers <bpm@sgi.com> wrote:
> > > > Hey Ric,
> > > >
> > > > On Fri, Nov 08, 2013 at 03:50:21PM -0500, Ric Wheeler wrote:
> > > >> On 11/08/2013 03:46 PM, Ben Myers wrote:
> > > >> >Hey Christoph,
> > > >> >
> > > >> >On Fri, Nov 08, 2013 at 11:34:24AM -0800, Christoph Hellwig wrote:
> > > >> >>On Fri, Nov 08, 2013 at 12:03:37PM -0600, Ben Myers wrote:
> > > >> >>>Mark is replacing Alex as my backup because Alex is really busy at
> > > >> >>>Linaro and asked to be taken off awhile ago. The holiday season is
> > > >> >>>coming up and I fully intend to go off my meds, turn in to Fonzy the
> > > >> >>>bear, and eat my hat. I need someone to watch the shop while I'm off
> > > >> >>>exploring on Mars. I trust Mark to do that because he is totally
> > > >> >>>awesome.
> > > >> >>
> > > >> >>Doing this as an unilateral decisions is not something that will win you
> > > >> >>a fan base.
> > > >> >It's posted for review.
> > > >> >
> > > >> >>While we never had anything reassembling a democracy in Linux Kernel
> > > >> >>development making decisions without even contacting the major
> > > >> >>contributor is wrong, twice so if the maintainer is a relatively minor
> > > >> >>contributor to start with.
> > > >> >>
> > > >> >>Just because it recent came up elsewhere I'd like to recite the
> > > >> >>definition from Trond here again:
> > > >> >>
> > > >> >> http://lists.linux-foundation.org/pipermail/ksummit-2012-discuss/2012-June/000066.html
> > > >> >>
> > > >> >>By many of the creative roles enlisted there it's clear that Dave should
> > > >> >>be the maintainer. He's been the main contributor and chief architect
> > > >> >>for XFS for many year, while the maintainers came and went at the mercy
> > > >> >>of SGI. This is not meant to bad mouth either of you as I think you're
> > > >> >>doing a reasonably good job compared to other maintainers, but at the
> > > >> >>same time the direction is set by other people that have a much longer
> > > >> >>involvement with the project, and having them officially in control
> > > >> >>would help us forward a lot. It would also avoid having to spend
> > > >> >>considerable resources to train every new generation of SGI maintainer.
> > > >> >>
> > > >> >>Coming to and end I would like to maintain Dave Chinner as the primary
> > > >> >>XFS maintainer for all the work he has done as biggest contributor and
> > > >> >>architect of XFS since longer than I can remember, and I would love to
> > > >> >>retain Ben Myers as a co-maintainer for all the good work he has done
> > > >> >>maintaining and reviewing patches since November 2011.
> > > >> >I think we're doing a decent job too. So thanks for that much at least. ;)
> > > >> >>I would also like to use this post as a public venue to condemn the
> > > >> >>unilateral smokey backroom decisions about XFS maintainership that SGI is
> > > >> >>trying to enforce on the community.
> > > >> >That really didn't happen Christoph. It's not in my tree or in a pull request.
> > > >> >
> > > >> >Linus, let me know what you want to do. I do think we're doing a fair job over
> > > >> >here, and (geez) I'm just trying to add Mark as my backup since Alex is too
> > > >> >busy. I know the RH people want more control, and that's understandable, but
> > > >> >they really don't need to replace me to get their code in. Ouch.
> > > >> >
> > > >> >Thanks,
> > > >> > Ben
> > > >>
> > > >> Christoph is not a Red Hat person.
> > > >>
> > > >> Jeff is from Oracle.
> > > >>
> > > >> This is not a Red Hat vs SGI thing,
> > > >
> > > > Sorry if my read on that was wrong.
> > > >
> > > >> Dave simply has earned the right
> > > >> to take on the formal leadership role of maintainer.
> > > >
> > > > Then we're gonna need some Reviewed-bys. ;)
> > > >
> > > > From: Ben Myers <bpm@sgi.com>
> > > >
> > > > xfs: update maintainers
> > > >
> > > > Add Dave as maintainer of XFS.
> > > >
> > > > Signed-off-by: Ben Myers <bpm@sgi.com>
> > > > ---
> > > > MAINTAINERS | 2 +-
> > > > 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-)
> > > >
> > > > Index: b/MAINTAINERS
> > > > ===================================================================
> > > > --- a/MAINTAINERS 2013-11-08 15:20:18.935186245 -0600
> > > > +++ b/MAINTAINERS 2013-11-08 15:22:50.685245977 -0600
> > > > @@ -9387,8 +9387,8 @@ F: drivers/xen/*swiotlb*
> > > >
> > > > XFS FILESYSTEM
> > > > P: Silicon Graphics Inc
> > > > +M: Dave Chinner <dchinner@fromorbit.com>
> > > Use his personal private mail account? I guess that you should ask for
> > > his opinion at first, or it is more appropriate that he submit this
> > > patch by himself.
>
> If y'all don't mind, I'd like to have authored this one. ;)
>
> > Indeed. And does he even want the job? I heard Linus say in a recent
> > interview that being a maintainer is a $#!+ job.
>
> I've found that it can be a little bit stressful sometimes and it tends to
> crowd out feature work, so I guess I agree with him. It turns out to be an
> excellent weight loss plan.
>
> > Is it really best for the
> > most active developers to be burdened with that extra work?
> >
> > (hmm.. maybe I should add Dave to the Cc here .. but no-one else did so best
> > leave him alone to code in peace).
>
> Dave, what do you want to do here? Which email? What sort of arrangement? I
> gather that you probably do want the job, and I know you'll be fantastic. Do
> you want to do it all yourself? Maybe split it up?
I should have also suggested that we can add you to this file and just keep our
existing arrangements. That seems appropriate to me, befitting of your
achievements, the work you've been doing, and I'm willing to keep on as I am.
Regards,
Ben
_______________________________________________
xfs mailing list
xfs@oss.sgi.com
http://oss.sgi.com/mailman/listinfo/xfs
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 60+ messages in thread
* Re: [PATCH] update xfs maintainers
2013-11-10 0:30 ` Ben Myers
@ 2013-11-10 3:13 ` Stan Hoeppner
-1 siblings, 0 replies; 60+ messages in thread
From: Stan Hoeppner @ 2013-11-10 3:13 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Ben Myers, NeilBrown, Dave Chinner
Cc: Zhi Yong Wu, elder, Mark Tinguely, Ric Wheeler, linux-kernel,
xfstests, Christoph Hellwig, Linus Torvalds
Dave is on the other side of the international date line from those of
us in the States. If my time zone math is correct, this thread began
and continued *after* the end of his 'normal' Friday workday, during
Dave's weekend. You think it might be possible he decided to unplug and
actually live for a couple of days?
Put this on hold until Monday.
--
Stan
On 11/9/2013 6:30 PM, Ben Myers wrote:
> Dave,
>
> On Sat, Nov 09, 2013 at 05:51:30PM -0600, Ben Myers wrote:
>> Hey Neil,
>>
>> On Sat, Nov 09, 2013 at 10:44:24AM +1100, NeilBrown wrote:
>>> On Sat, 9 Nov 2013 06:59:00 +0800 Zhi Yong Wu <zwu.kernel@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>> On Sat, Nov 9, 2013 at 6:03 AM, Ben Myers <bpm@sgi.com> wrote:
>>>>> Hey Ric,
>>>>>
>>>>> On Fri, Nov 08, 2013 at 03:50:21PM -0500, Ric Wheeler wrote:
>>>>>> On 11/08/2013 03:46 PM, Ben Myers wrote:
>>>>>>> Hey Christoph,
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> On Fri, Nov 08, 2013 at 11:34:24AM -0800, Christoph Hellwig wrote:
>>>>>>>> On Fri, Nov 08, 2013 at 12:03:37PM -0600, Ben Myers wrote:
>>>>>>>>> Mark is replacing Alex as my backup because Alex is really busy at
>>>>>>>>> Linaro and asked to be taken off awhile ago. The holiday season is
>>>>>>>>> coming up and I fully intend to go off my meds, turn in to Fonzy the
>>>>>>>>> bear, and eat my hat. I need someone to watch the shop while I'm off
>>>>>>>>> exploring on Mars. I trust Mark to do that because he is totally
>>>>>>>>> awesome.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Doing this as an unilateral decisions is not something that will win you
>>>>>>>> a fan base.
>>>>>>> It's posted for review.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> While we never had anything reassembling a democracy in Linux Kernel
>>>>>>>> development making decisions without even contacting the major
>>>>>>>> contributor is wrong, twice so if the maintainer is a relatively minor
>>>>>>>> contributor to start with.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Just because it recent came up elsewhere I'd like to recite the
>>>>>>>> definition from Trond here again:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> http://lists.linux-foundation.org/pipermail/ksummit-2012-discuss/2012-June/000066.html
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> By many of the creative roles enlisted there it's clear that Dave should
>>>>>>>> be the maintainer. He's been the main contributor and chief architect
>>>>>>>> for XFS for many year, while the maintainers came and went at the mercy
>>>>>>>> of SGI. This is not meant to bad mouth either of you as I think you're
>>>>>>>> doing a reasonably good job compared to other maintainers, but at the
>>>>>>>> same time the direction is set by other people that have a much longer
>>>>>>>> involvement with the project, and having them officially in control
>>>>>>>> would help us forward a lot. It would also avoid having to spend
>>>>>>>> considerable resources to train every new generation of SGI maintainer.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Coming to and end I would like to maintain Dave Chinner as the primary
>>>>>>>> XFS maintainer for all the work he has done as biggest contributor and
>>>>>>>> architect of XFS since longer than I can remember, and I would love to
>>>>>>>> retain Ben Myers as a co-maintainer for all the good work he has done
>>>>>>>> maintaining and reviewing patches since November 2011.
>>>>>>> I think we're doing a decent job too. So thanks for that much at least. ;)
>>>>>>>> I would also like to use this post as a public venue to condemn the
>>>>>>>> unilateral smokey backroom decisions about XFS maintainership that SGI is
>>>>>>>> trying to enforce on the community.
>>>>>>> That really didn't happen Christoph. It's not in my tree or in a pull request.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Linus, let me know what you want to do. I do think we're doing a fair job over
>>>>>>> here, and (geez) I'm just trying to add Mark as my backup since Alex is too
>>>>>>> busy. I know the RH people want more control, and that's understandable, but
>>>>>>> they really don't need to replace me to get their code in. Ouch.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Thanks,
>>>>>>> Ben
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Christoph is not a Red Hat person.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Jeff is from Oracle.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> This is not a Red Hat vs SGI thing,
>>>>>
>>>>> Sorry if my read on that was wrong.
>>>>>
>>>>>> Dave simply has earned the right
>>>>>> to take on the formal leadership role of maintainer.
>>>>>
>>>>> Then we're gonna need some Reviewed-bys. ;)
>>>>>
>>>>> From: Ben Myers <bpm@sgi.com>
>>>>>
>>>>> xfs: update maintainers
>>>>>
>>>>> Add Dave as maintainer of XFS.
>>>>>
>>>>> Signed-off-by: Ben Myers <bpm@sgi.com>
>>>>> ---
>>>>> MAINTAINERS | 2 +-
>>>>> 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-)
>>>>>
>>>>> Index: b/MAINTAINERS
>>>>> ===================================================================
>>>>> --- a/MAINTAINERS 2013-11-08 15:20:18.935186245 -0600
>>>>> +++ b/MAINTAINERS 2013-11-08 15:22:50.685245977 -0600
>>>>> @@ -9387,8 +9387,8 @@ F: drivers/xen/*swiotlb*
>>>>>
>>>>> XFS FILESYSTEM
>>>>> P: Silicon Graphics Inc
>>>>> +M: Dave Chinner <dchinner@fromorbit.com>
>>>> Use his personal private mail account? I guess that you should ask for
>>>> his opinion at first, or it is more appropriate that he submit this
>>>> patch by himself.
>>
>> If y'all don't mind, I'd like to have authored this one. ;)
>>
>>> Indeed. And does he even want the job? I heard Linus say in a recent
>>> interview that being a maintainer is a $#!+ job.
>>
>> I've found that it can be a little bit stressful sometimes and it tends to
>> crowd out feature work, so I guess I agree with him. It turns out to be an
>> excellent weight loss plan.
>>
>>> Is it really best for the
>>> most active developers to be burdened with that extra work?
>>>
>>> (hmm.. maybe I should add Dave to the Cc here .. but no-one else did so best
>>> leave him alone to code in peace).
>>
>> Dave, what do you want to do here? Which email? What sort of arrangement? I
>> gather that you probably do want the job, and I know you'll be fantastic. Do
>> you want to do it all yourself? Maybe split it up?
>
> I should have also suggested that we can add you to this file and just keep our
> existing arrangements. That seems appropriate to me, befitting of your
> achievements, the work you've been doing, and I'm willing to keep on as I am.
>
> Regards,
> Ben
>
> _______________________________________________
> xfs mailing list
> xfs@oss.sgi.com
> http://oss.sgi.com/mailman/listinfo/xfs
>
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 60+ messages in thread
* Re: [PATCH] update xfs maintainers
@ 2013-11-10 3:13 ` Stan Hoeppner
0 siblings, 0 replies; 60+ messages in thread
From: Stan Hoeppner @ 2013-11-10 3:13 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Ben Myers, NeilBrown, Dave Chinner
Cc: Christoph Hellwig, elder, Mark Tinguely, Linus Torvalds,
linux-kernel, xfstests, Zhi Yong Wu, Ric Wheeler
Dave is on the other side of the international date line from those of
us in the States. If my time zone math is correct, this thread began
and continued *after* the end of his 'normal' Friday workday, during
Dave's weekend. You think it might be possible he decided to unplug and
actually live for a couple of days?
Put this on hold until Monday.
--
Stan
On 11/9/2013 6:30 PM, Ben Myers wrote:
> Dave,
>
> On Sat, Nov 09, 2013 at 05:51:30PM -0600, Ben Myers wrote:
>> Hey Neil,
>>
>> On Sat, Nov 09, 2013 at 10:44:24AM +1100, NeilBrown wrote:
>>> On Sat, 9 Nov 2013 06:59:00 +0800 Zhi Yong Wu <zwu.kernel@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>> On Sat, Nov 9, 2013 at 6:03 AM, Ben Myers <bpm@sgi.com> wrote:
>>>>> Hey Ric,
>>>>>
>>>>> On Fri, Nov 08, 2013 at 03:50:21PM -0500, Ric Wheeler wrote:
>>>>>> On 11/08/2013 03:46 PM, Ben Myers wrote:
>>>>>>> Hey Christoph,
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> On Fri, Nov 08, 2013 at 11:34:24AM -0800, Christoph Hellwig wrote:
>>>>>>>> On Fri, Nov 08, 2013 at 12:03:37PM -0600, Ben Myers wrote:
>>>>>>>>> Mark is replacing Alex as my backup because Alex is really busy at
>>>>>>>>> Linaro and asked to be taken off awhile ago. The holiday season is
>>>>>>>>> coming up and I fully intend to go off my meds, turn in to Fonzy the
>>>>>>>>> bear, and eat my hat. I need someone to watch the shop while I'm off
>>>>>>>>> exploring on Mars. I trust Mark to do that because he is totally
>>>>>>>>> awesome.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Doing this as an unilateral decisions is not something that will win you
>>>>>>>> a fan base.
>>>>>>> It's posted for review.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> While we never had anything reassembling a democracy in Linux Kernel
>>>>>>>> development making decisions without even contacting the major
>>>>>>>> contributor is wrong, twice so if the maintainer is a relatively minor
>>>>>>>> contributor to start with.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Just because it recent came up elsewhere I'd like to recite the
>>>>>>>> definition from Trond here again:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> http://lists.linux-foundation.org/pipermail/ksummit-2012-discuss/2012-June/000066.html
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> By many of the creative roles enlisted there it's clear that Dave should
>>>>>>>> be the maintainer. He's been the main contributor and chief architect
>>>>>>>> for XFS for many year, while the maintainers came and went at the mercy
>>>>>>>> of SGI. This is not meant to bad mouth either of you as I think you're
>>>>>>>> doing a reasonably good job compared to other maintainers, but at the
>>>>>>>> same time the direction is set by other people that have a much longer
>>>>>>>> involvement with the project, and having them officially in control
>>>>>>>> would help us forward a lot. It would also avoid having to spend
>>>>>>>> considerable resources to train every new generation of SGI maintainer.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Coming to and end I would like to maintain Dave Chinner as the primary
>>>>>>>> XFS maintainer for all the work he has done as biggest contributor and
>>>>>>>> architect of XFS since longer than I can remember, and I would love to
>>>>>>>> retain Ben Myers as a co-maintainer for all the good work he has done
>>>>>>>> maintaining and reviewing patches since November 2011.
>>>>>>> I think we're doing a decent job too. So thanks for that much at least. ;)
>>>>>>>> I would also like to use this post as a public venue to condemn the
>>>>>>>> unilateral smokey backroom decisions about XFS maintainership that SGI is
>>>>>>>> trying to enforce on the community.
>>>>>>> That really didn't happen Christoph. It's not in my tree or in a pull request.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Linus, let me know what you want to do. I do think we're doing a fair job over
>>>>>>> here, and (geez) I'm just trying to add Mark as my backup since Alex is too
>>>>>>> busy. I know the RH people want more control, and that's understandable, but
>>>>>>> they really don't need to replace me to get their code in. Ouch.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Thanks,
>>>>>>> Ben
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Christoph is not a Red Hat person.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Jeff is from Oracle.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> This is not a Red Hat vs SGI thing,
>>>>>
>>>>> Sorry if my read on that was wrong.
>>>>>
>>>>>> Dave simply has earned the right
>>>>>> to take on the formal leadership role of maintainer.
>>>>>
>>>>> Then we're gonna need some Reviewed-bys. ;)
>>>>>
>>>>> From: Ben Myers <bpm@sgi.com>
>>>>>
>>>>> xfs: update maintainers
>>>>>
>>>>> Add Dave as maintainer of XFS.
>>>>>
>>>>> Signed-off-by: Ben Myers <bpm@sgi.com>
>>>>> ---
>>>>> MAINTAINERS | 2 +-
>>>>> 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-)
>>>>>
>>>>> Index: b/MAINTAINERS
>>>>> ===================================================================
>>>>> --- a/MAINTAINERS 2013-11-08 15:20:18.935186245 -0600
>>>>> +++ b/MAINTAINERS 2013-11-08 15:22:50.685245977 -0600
>>>>> @@ -9387,8 +9387,8 @@ F: drivers/xen/*swiotlb*
>>>>>
>>>>> XFS FILESYSTEM
>>>>> P: Silicon Graphics Inc
>>>>> +M: Dave Chinner <dchinner@fromorbit.com>
>>>> Use his personal private mail account? I guess that you should ask for
>>>> his opinion at first, or it is more appropriate that he submit this
>>>> patch by himself.
>>
>> If y'all don't mind, I'd like to have authored this one. ;)
>>
>>> Indeed. And does he even want the job? I heard Linus say in a recent
>>> interview that being a maintainer is a $#!+ job.
>>
>> I've found that it can be a little bit stressful sometimes and it tends to
>> crowd out feature work, so I guess I agree with him. It turns out to be an
>> excellent weight loss plan.
>>
>>> Is it really best for the
>>> most active developers to be burdened with that extra work?
>>>
>>> (hmm.. maybe I should add Dave to the Cc here .. but no-one else did so best
>>> leave him alone to code in peace).
>>
>> Dave, what do you want to do here? Which email? What sort of arrangement? I
>> gather that you probably do want the job, and I know you'll be fantastic. Do
>> you want to do it all yourself? Maybe split it up?
>
> I should have also suggested that we can add you to this file and just keep our
> existing arrangements. That seems appropriate to me, befitting of your
> achievements, the work you've been doing, and I'm willing to keep on as I am.
>
> Regards,
> Ben
>
> _______________________________________________
> xfs mailing list
> xfs@oss.sgi.com
> http://oss.sgi.com/mailman/listinfo/xfs
>
_______________________________________________
xfs mailing list
xfs@oss.sgi.com
http://oss.sgi.com/mailman/listinfo/xfs
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 60+ messages in thread
* Re: [PATCH] update xfs maintainers
2013-11-10 0:30 ` Ben Myers
@ 2013-11-10 23:12 ` Dave Chinner
-1 siblings, 0 replies; 60+ messages in thread
From: Dave Chinner @ 2013-11-10 23:12 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Ben Myers
Cc: NeilBrown, Christoph Hellwig, elder, Mark Tinguely,
Linus Torvalds, linux-kernel, xfstests, Zhi Yong Wu, Ric Wheeler
On Sat, Nov 09, 2013 at 06:30:49PM -0600, Ben Myers wrote:
> On Sat, Nov 09, 2013 at 05:51:30PM -0600, Ben Myers wrote:
> > On Sat, Nov 09, 2013 at 10:44:24AM +1100, NeilBrown wrote:
> > > On Sat, 9 Nov 2013 06:59:00 +0800 Zhi Yong Wu <zwu.kernel@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > > On Sat, Nov 9, 2013 at 6:03 AM, Ben Myers <bpm@sgi.com> wrote:
> > > > > On Fri, Nov 08, 2013 at 03:50:21PM -0500, Ric Wheeler wrote:
> > > > >> On 11/08/2013 03:46 PM, Ben Myers wrote:
> > > > >> >Hey Christoph,
> > > > >> >
> > > > >> >On Fri, Nov 08, 2013 at 11:34:24AM -0800, Christoph Hellwig wrote:
> > > > >> >>On Fri, Nov 08, 2013 at 12:03:37PM -0600, Ben Myers wrote:
> > > > >> >>>Mark is replacing Alex as my backup because Alex is really busy at
> > > > >> >>>Linaro and asked to be taken off awhile ago. The holiday season is
> > > > >> >>>coming up and I fully intend to go off my meds, turn in to Fonzy the
> > > > >> >>>bear, and eat my hat. I need someone to watch the shop while I'm off
> > > > >> >>>exploring on Mars. I trust Mark to do that because he is totally
> > > > >> >>>awesome.
> > > > >> >>
> > > > >> >>Doing this as an unilateral decisions is not something that will win you
> > > > >> >>a fan base.
> > > > >> >It's posted for review.
> > > > >> >
> > > > >> >>While we never had anything reassembling a democracy in Linux Kernel
> > > > >> >>development making decisions without even contacting the major
> > > > >> >>contributor is wrong, twice so if the maintainer is a relatively minor
> > > > >> >>contributor to start with.
> > > > >> >>
> > > > >> >>Just because it recent came up elsewhere I'd like to recite the
> > > > >> >>definition from Trond here again:
> > > > >> >>
> > > > >> >> http://lists.linux-foundation.org/pipermail/ksummit-2012-discuss/2012-June/000066.html
Yup, and my take on the role of a Maintainer is here:
http://oss.sgi.com/archives/xfs/2013-08/msg00633.html
> > > > > P: Silicon Graphics Inc
> > > > > +M: Dave Chinner <dchinner@fromorbit.com>
I flattered by this, but there is a reason I've resisted taking this
position for a long time. Mainly for the reasons already mentioned:
> > > Indeed. And does he even want the job? I heard Linus say in a recent
> > > interview that being a maintainer is a $#!+ job.
> >
> > I've found that it can be a little bit stressful sometimes and it tends to
> > crowd out feature work, so I guess I agree with him. It turns out to be an
> > excellent weight loss plan.
which are all true, but I'm already pulling most patches off the
list, applying them to my own trees, testing them and reviewing
them. Hence juggling them into a stable, non-rebasing git tree
branch on a server somewhere isn't a huge amount of extra work...
> > > Is it really best for the
> > > most active developers to be burdened with that extra work?
> > >
> > > (hmm.. maybe I should add Dave to the Cc here .. but no-one else did so best
> > > leave him alone to code in peace).
> >
> > Dave, what do you want to do here? Which email? What sort of arrangement? I
> > gather that you probably do want the job, and I know you'll be fantastic. Do
> > you want to do it all yourself? Maybe split it up?
>
> I should have also suggested that we can add you to this file and just keep our
> existing arrangements. That seems appropriate to me, befitting of your
> achievements, the work you've been doing, and I'm willing to keep on as I am.
OK, I've read the thread and had a think about it. My thoughts are
as follows....
I'm not interested in being a co-maintainer in name only or only as
a backup to only be used when Ben goes on holidays.
Co-maintainer means SGI is giving me all the access and admin rights
needed to commit and maintain git trees on oss.sgi.com (including
creating new trees) at any time, at any point in a release cycle,
etc. i.e. I can do anything that Ben can currently do on
oss.sgi.com from XFS POV...
Co-maintainer is not a kernel-tree only deal. It's for everything
XFS related: kernel code, xfsprogs, xfstests and xfsdump.
Co-maintainer does not mean "Dave does everything". Yes, I can do a
lot of the heavy lifting, but I'm very happy for Ben to continue
committing patches he reviews and handling userspace releases and
pushing stuff to Linus and so on. There's some logistics we need to
work out here so we aren't going to step on each other's toes, but
there's no unsolvable issues here.
Co-maintainer is not a role I will perform with a Red Hat on. I will
review and sign off on anything in my co-maintainer role as
"david@fromorbit.com". Hence I hope to be able to maintain a clear
distinction between the duties I perform on behalf of the community
and code that I write on Red Hat's behalf.
Lastly, being a maintainer doesn't solve the problem of review
latency of the code I write. I'm hoping that everyone understands
that maintainers are still dependent on the receiving help from the
community they serve to get their own work done.
Ben, let's talk more about the logistics of this offline first
before making anything official....
Cheers,
Dave.
--
Dave Chinner
david@fromorbit.com
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 60+ messages in thread
* Re: [PATCH] update xfs maintainers
@ 2013-11-10 23:12 ` Dave Chinner
0 siblings, 0 replies; 60+ messages in thread
From: Dave Chinner @ 2013-11-10 23:12 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Ben Myers
Cc: Zhi Yong Wu, elder, Mark Tinguely, NeilBrown, Ric Wheeler,
linux-kernel, xfstests, Christoph Hellwig, Linus Torvalds
On Sat, Nov 09, 2013 at 06:30:49PM -0600, Ben Myers wrote:
> On Sat, Nov 09, 2013 at 05:51:30PM -0600, Ben Myers wrote:
> > On Sat, Nov 09, 2013 at 10:44:24AM +1100, NeilBrown wrote:
> > > On Sat, 9 Nov 2013 06:59:00 +0800 Zhi Yong Wu <zwu.kernel@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > > On Sat, Nov 9, 2013 at 6:03 AM, Ben Myers <bpm@sgi.com> wrote:
> > > > > On Fri, Nov 08, 2013 at 03:50:21PM -0500, Ric Wheeler wrote:
> > > > >> On 11/08/2013 03:46 PM, Ben Myers wrote:
> > > > >> >Hey Christoph,
> > > > >> >
> > > > >> >On Fri, Nov 08, 2013 at 11:34:24AM -0800, Christoph Hellwig wrote:
> > > > >> >>On Fri, Nov 08, 2013 at 12:03:37PM -0600, Ben Myers wrote:
> > > > >> >>>Mark is replacing Alex as my backup because Alex is really busy at
> > > > >> >>>Linaro and asked to be taken off awhile ago. The holiday season is
> > > > >> >>>coming up and I fully intend to go off my meds, turn in to Fonzy the
> > > > >> >>>bear, and eat my hat. I need someone to watch the shop while I'm off
> > > > >> >>>exploring on Mars. I trust Mark to do that because he is totally
> > > > >> >>>awesome.
> > > > >> >>
> > > > >> >>Doing this as an unilateral decisions is not something that will win you
> > > > >> >>a fan base.
> > > > >> >It's posted for review.
> > > > >> >
> > > > >> >>While we never had anything reassembling a democracy in Linux Kernel
> > > > >> >>development making decisions without even contacting the major
> > > > >> >>contributor is wrong, twice so if the maintainer is a relatively minor
> > > > >> >>contributor to start with.
> > > > >> >>
> > > > >> >>Just because it recent came up elsewhere I'd like to recite the
> > > > >> >>definition from Trond here again:
> > > > >> >>
> > > > >> >> http://lists.linux-foundation.org/pipermail/ksummit-2012-discuss/2012-June/000066.html
Yup, and my take on the role of a Maintainer is here:
http://oss.sgi.com/archives/xfs/2013-08/msg00633.html
> > > > > P: Silicon Graphics Inc
> > > > > +M: Dave Chinner <dchinner@fromorbit.com>
I flattered by this, but there is a reason I've resisted taking this
position for a long time. Mainly for the reasons already mentioned:
> > > Indeed. And does he even want the job? I heard Linus say in a recent
> > > interview that being a maintainer is a $#!+ job.
> >
> > I've found that it can be a little bit stressful sometimes and it tends to
> > crowd out feature work, so I guess I agree with him. It turns out to be an
> > excellent weight loss plan.
which are all true, but I'm already pulling most patches off the
list, applying them to my own trees, testing them and reviewing
them. Hence juggling them into a stable, non-rebasing git tree
branch on a server somewhere isn't a huge amount of extra work...
> > > Is it really best for the
> > > most active developers to be burdened with that extra work?
> > >
> > > (hmm.. maybe I should add Dave to the Cc here .. but no-one else did so best
> > > leave him alone to code in peace).
> >
> > Dave, what do you want to do here? Which email? What sort of arrangement? I
> > gather that you probably do want the job, and I know you'll be fantastic. Do
> > you want to do it all yourself? Maybe split it up?
>
> I should have also suggested that we can add you to this file and just keep our
> existing arrangements. That seems appropriate to me, befitting of your
> achievements, the work you've been doing, and I'm willing to keep on as I am.
OK, I've read the thread and had a think about it. My thoughts are
as follows....
I'm not interested in being a co-maintainer in name only or only as
a backup to only be used when Ben goes on holidays.
Co-maintainer means SGI is giving me all the access and admin rights
needed to commit and maintain git trees on oss.sgi.com (including
creating new trees) at any time, at any point in a release cycle,
etc. i.e. I can do anything that Ben can currently do on
oss.sgi.com from XFS POV...
Co-maintainer is not a kernel-tree only deal. It's for everything
XFS related: kernel code, xfsprogs, xfstests and xfsdump.
Co-maintainer does not mean "Dave does everything". Yes, I can do a
lot of the heavy lifting, but I'm very happy for Ben to continue
committing patches he reviews and handling userspace releases and
pushing stuff to Linus and so on. There's some logistics we need to
work out here so we aren't going to step on each other's toes, but
there's no unsolvable issues here.
Co-maintainer is not a role I will perform with a Red Hat on. I will
review and sign off on anything in my co-maintainer role as
"david@fromorbit.com". Hence I hope to be able to maintain a clear
distinction between the duties I perform on behalf of the community
and code that I write on Red Hat's behalf.
Lastly, being a maintainer doesn't solve the problem of review
latency of the code I write. I'm hoping that everyone understands
that maintainers are still dependent on the receiving help from the
community they serve to get their own work done.
Ben, let's talk more about the logistics of this offline first
before making anything official....
Cheers,
Dave.
--
Dave Chinner
david@fromorbit.com
_______________________________________________
xfs mailing list
xfs@oss.sgi.com
http://oss.sgi.com/mailman/listinfo/xfs
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 60+ messages in thread
* Re: [PATCH] update xfs maintainers
2013-11-10 3:13 ` Stan Hoeppner
@ 2013-11-10 23:32 ` Dave Chinner
-1 siblings, 0 replies; 60+ messages in thread
From: Dave Chinner @ 2013-11-10 23:32 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Stan Hoeppner
Cc: Ben Myers, NeilBrown, Zhi Yong Wu, elder, Mark Tinguely,
Ric Wheeler, linux-kernel, xfstests, Christoph Hellwig,
Linus Torvalds
On Sat, Nov 09, 2013 at 09:13:03PM -0600, Stan Hoeppner wrote:
> Dave is on the other side of the international date line from those of
> us in the States. If my time zone math is correct, this thread began
> and continued *after* the end of his 'normal' Friday workday, during
> Dave's weekend. You think it might be possible he decided to unplug and
> actually live for a couple of days?
If by "live" you mean "taking my race car to play amongst a gaggle
of supercars on an airstrip" then yes, living is exactly what I was
doing on the weekend.... :)
Cheers,
Dave.
--
Dave Chinner
david@fromorbit.com
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 60+ messages in thread
* Re: [PATCH] update xfs maintainers
@ 2013-11-10 23:32 ` Dave Chinner
0 siblings, 0 replies; 60+ messages in thread
From: Dave Chinner @ 2013-11-10 23:32 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Stan Hoeppner
Cc: Christoph Hellwig, elder, Mark Tinguely, NeilBrown,
Linus Torvalds, linux-kernel, xfstests, Zhi Yong Wu, Ben Myers,
Ric Wheeler
On Sat, Nov 09, 2013 at 09:13:03PM -0600, Stan Hoeppner wrote:
> Dave is on the other side of the international date line from those of
> us in the States. If my time zone math is correct, this thread began
> and continued *after* the end of his 'normal' Friday workday, during
> Dave's weekend. You think it might be possible he decided to unplug and
> actually live for a couple of days?
If by "live" you mean "taking my race car to play amongst a gaggle
of supercars on an airstrip" then yes, living is exactly what I was
doing on the weekend.... :)
Cheers,
Dave.
--
Dave Chinner
david@fromorbit.com
_______________________________________________
xfs mailing list
xfs@oss.sgi.com
http://oss.sgi.com/mailman/listinfo/xfs
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 60+ messages in thread
* Re: [PATCH] update xfs maintainers
2013-11-10 23:12 ` Dave Chinner
@ 2013-11-11 3:49 ` Ben Myers
-1 siblings, 0 replies; 60+ messages in thread
From: Ben Myers @ 2013-11-11 3:49 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Dave Chinner
Cc: Zhi Yong Wu, elder, Mark Tinguely, NeilBrown, Ric Wheeler,
linux-kernel, xfstests, Christoph Hellwig, Linus Torvalds
Hey Dave,
On Mon, Nov 11, 2013 at 10:12:41AM +1100, Dave Chinner wrote:
> On Sat, Nov 09, 2013 at 06:30:49PM -0600, Ben Myers wrote:
> > On Sat, Nov 09, 2013 at 05:51:30PM -0600, Ben Myers wrote:
> > > On Sat, Nov 09, 2013 at 10:44:24AM +1100, NeilBrown wrote:
> > > > On Sat, 9 Nov 2013 06:59:00 +0800 Zhi Yong Wu <zwu.kernel@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > > > On Sat, Nov 9, 2013 at 6:03 AM, Ben Myers <bpm@sgi.com> wrote:
> > > > > > On Fri, Nov 08, 2013 at 03:50:21PM -0500, Ric Wheeler wrote:
> > > > > >> On 11/08/2013 03:46 PM, Ben Myers wrote:
> > > > > >> >Hey Christoph,
> > > > > >> >
> > > > > >> >On Fri, Nov 08, 2013 at 11:34:24AM -0800, Christoph Hellwig wrote:
> > > > > >> >>On Fri, Nov 08, 2013 at 12:03:37PM -0600, Ben Myers wrote:
> > > > > >> >>>Mark is replacing Alex as my backup because Alex is really busy at
> > > > > >> >>>Linaro and asked to be taken off awhile ago. The holiday season is
> > > > > >> >>>coming up and I fully intend to go off my meds, turn in to Fonzy the
> > > > > >> >>>bear, and eat my hat. I need someone to watch the shop while I'm off
> > > > > >> >>>exploring on Mars. I trust Mark to do that because he is totally
> > > > > >> >>>awesome.
> > > > > >> >>
> > > > > >> >>Doing this as an unilateral decisions is not something that will win you
> > > > > >> >>a fan base.
> > > > > >> >It's posted for review.
> > > > > >> >
> > > > > >> >>While we never had anything reassembling a democracy in Linux Kernel
> > > > > >> >>development making decisions without even contacting the major
> > > > > >> >>contributor is wrong, twice so if the maintainer is a relatively minor
> > > > > >> >>contributor to start with.
> > > > > >> >>
> > > > > >> >>Just because it recent came up elsewhere I'd like to recite the
> > > > > >> >>definition from Trond here again:
> > > > > >> >>
> > > > > >> >> http://lists.linux-foundation.org/pipermail/ksummit-2012-discuss/2012-June/000066.html
>
> Yup, and my take on the role of a Maintainer is here:
>
> http://oss.sgi.com/archives/xfs/2013-08/msg00633.html
>
> > > > > > P: Silicon Graphics Inc
> > > > > > +M: Dave Chinner <dchinner@fromorbit.com>
>
> I flattered by this, but there is a reason I've resisted taking this
> position for a long time. Mainly for the reasons already mentioned:
>
> > > > Indeed. And does he even want the job? I heard Linus say in a recent
> > > > interview that being a maintainer is a $#!+ job.
> > >
> > > I've found that it can be a little bit stressful sometimes and it tends to
> > > crowd out feature work, so I guess I agree with him. It turns out to be an
> > > excellent weight loss plan.
>
> which are all true, but I'm already pulling most patches off the
> list, applying them to my own trees, testing them and reviewing
> them. Hence juggling them into a stable, non-rebasing git tree
> branch on a server somewhere isn't a huge amount of extra work...
>
> > > > Is it really best for the
> > > > most active developers to be burdened with that extra work?
> > > >
> > > > (hmm.. maybe I should add Dave to the Cc here .. but no-one else did so best
> > > > leave him alone to code in peace).
> > >
> > > Dave, what do you want to do here? Which email? What sort of arrangement? I
> > > gather that you probably do want the job, and I know you'll be fantastic. Do
> > > you want to do it all yourself? Maybe split it up?
> >
> > I should have also suggested that we can add you to this file and just keep our
> > existing arrangements. That seems appropriate to me, befitting of your
> > achievements, the work you've been doing, and I'm willing to keep on as I am.
>
> OK, I've read the thread and had a think about it. My thoughts are
> as follows....
>
> I'm not interested in being a co-maintainer in name only or only as
> a backup to only be used when Ben goes on holidays.
>
> Co-maintainer means SGI is giving me all the access and admin rights
> needed to commit and maintain git trees on oss.sgi.com (including
> creating new trees) at any time, at any point in a release cycle,
> etc. i.e. I can do anything that Ben can currently do on
> oss.sgi.com from XFS POV...
>
> Co-maintainer is not a kernel-tree only deal. It's for everything
> XFS related: kernel code, xfsprogs, xfstests and xfsdump.
>
> Co-maintainer does not mean "Dave does everything". Yes, I can do a
> lot of the heavy lifting, but I'm very happy for Ben to continue
> committing patches he reviews and handling userspace releases and
> pushing stuff to Linus and so on. There's some logistics we need to
> work out here so we aren't going to step on each other's toes, but
> there's no unsolvable issues here.
>
> Co-maintainer is not a role I will perform with a Red Hat on. I will
> review and sign off on anything in my co-maintainer role as
> "david@fromorbit.com". Hence I hope to be able to maintain a clear
> distinction between the duties I perform on behalf of the community
> and code that I write on Red Hat's behalf.
>
> Lastly, being a maintainer doesn't solve the problem of review
> latency of the code I write. I'm hoping that everyone understands
> that maintainers are still dependent on the receiving help from the
> community they serve to get their own work done.
>
> Ben, let's talk more about the logistics of this offline first
> before making anything official....
Sounds good. I'm AFK on Monday, so I'll ping you later in the week and
we can get together. ;)
Regards,
Ben
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 60+ messages in thread
* Re: [PATCH] update xfs maintainers
@ 2013-11-11 3:49 ` Ben Myers
0 siblings, 0 replies; 60+ messages in thread
From: Ben Myers @ 2013-11-11 3:49 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Dave Chinner
Cc: Christoph Hellwig, elder, Mark Tinguely, NeilBrown,
Linus Torvalds, linux-kernel, xfstests, Zhi Yong Wu, Ric Wheeler
Hey Dave,
On Mon, Nov 11, 2013 at 10:12:41AM +1100, Dave Chinner wrote:
> On Sat, Nov 09, 2013 at 06:30:49PM -0600, Ben Myers wrote:
> > On Sat, Nov 09, 2013 at 05:51:30PM -0600, Ben Myers wrote:
> > > On Sat, Nov 09, 2013 at 10:44:24AM +1100, NeilBrown wrote:
> > > > On Sat, 9 Nov 2013 06:59:00 +0800 Zhi Yong Wu <zwu.kernel@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > > > On Sat, Nov 9, 2013 at 6:03 AM, Ben Myers <bpm@sgi.com> wrote:
> > > > > > On Fri, Nov 08, 2013 at 03:50:21PM -0500, Ric Wheeler wrote:
> > > > > >> On 11/08/2013 03:46 PM, Ben Myers wrote:
> > > > > >> >Hey Christoph,
> > > > > >> >
> > > > > >> >On Fri, Nov 08, 2013 at 11:34:24AM -0800, Christoph Hellwig wrote:
> > > > > >> >>On Fri, Nov 08, 2013 at 12:03:37PM -0600, Ben Myers wrote:
> > > > > >> >>>Mark is replacing Alex as my backup because Alex is really busy at
> > > > > >> >>>Linaro and asked to be taken off awhile ago. The holiday season is
> > > > > >> >>>coming up and I fully intend to go off my meds, turn in to Fonzy the
> > > > > >> >>>bear, and eat my hat. I need someone to watch the shop while I'm off
> > > > > >> >>>exploring on Mars. I trust Mark to do that because he is totally
> > > > > >> >>>awesome.
> > > > > >> >>
> > > > > >> >>Doing this as an unilateral decisions is not something that will win you
> > > > > >> >>a fan base.
> > > > > >> >It's posted for review.
> > > > > >> >
> > > > > >> >>While we never had anything reassembling a democracy in Linux Kernel
> > > > > >> >>development making decisions without even contacting the major
> > > > > >> >>contributor is wrong, twice so if the maintainer is a relatively minor
> > > > > >> >>contributor to start with.
> > > > > >> >>
> > > > > >> >>Just because it recent came up elsewhere I'd like to recite the
> > > > > >> >>definition from Trond here again:
> > > > > >> >>
> > > > > >> >> http://lists.linux-foundation.org/pipermail/ksummit-2012-discuss/2012-June/000066.html
>
> Yup, and my take on the role of a Maintainer is here:
>
> http://oss.sgi.com/archives/xfs/2013-08/msg00633.html
>
> > > > > > P: Silicon Graphics Inc
> > > > > > +M: Dave Chinner <dchinner@fromorbit.com>
>
> I flattered by this, but there is a reason I've resisted taking this
> position for a long time. Mainly for the reasons already mentioned:
>
> > > > Indeed. And does he even want the job? I heard Linus say in a recent
> > > > interview that being a maintainer is a $#!+ job.
> > >
> > > I've found that it can be a little bit stressful sometimes and it tends to
> > > crowd out feature work, so I guess I agree with him. It turns out to be an
> > > excellent weight loss plan.
>
> which are all true, but I'm already pulling most patches off the
> list, applying them to my own trees, testing them and reviewing
> them. Hence juggling them into a stable, non-rebasing git tree
> branch on a server somewhere isn't a huge amount of extra work...
>
> > > > Is it really best for the
> > > > most active developers to be burdened with that extra work?
> > > >
> > > > (hmm.. maybe I should add Dave to the Cc here .. but no-one else did so best
> > > > leave him alone to code in peace).
> > >
> > > Dave, what do you want to do here? Which email? What sort of arrangement? I
> > > gather that you probably do want the job, and I know you'll be fantastic. Do
> > > you want to do it all yourself? Maybe split it up?
> >
> > I should have also suggested that we can add you to this file and just keep our
> > existing arrangements. That seems appropriate to me, befitting of your
> > achievements, the work you've been doing, and I'm willing to keep on as I am.
>
> OK, I've read the thread and had a think about it. My thoughts are
> as follows....
>
> I'm not interested in being a co-maintainer in name only or only as
> a backup to only be used when Ben goes on holidays.
>
> Co-maintainer means SGI is giving me all the access and admin rights
> needed to commit and maintain git trees on oss.sgi.com (including
> creating new trees) at any time, at any point in a release cycle,
> etc. i.e. I can do anything that Ben can currently do on
> oss.sgi.com from XFS POV...
>
> Co-maintainer is not a kernel-tree only deal. It's for everything
> XFS related: kernel code, xfsprogs, xfstests and xfsdump.
>
> Co-maintainer does not mean "Dave does everything". Yes, I can do a
> lot of the heavy lifting, but I'm very happy for Ben to continue
> committing patches he reviews and handling userspace releases and
> pushing stuff to Linus and so on. There's some logistics we need to
> work out here so we aren't going to step on each other's toes, but
> there's no unsolvable issues here.
>
> Co-maintainer is not a role I will perform with a Red Hat on. I will
> review and sign off on anything in my co-maintainer role as
> "david@fromorbit.com". Hence I hope to be able to maintain a clear
> distinction between the duties I perform on behalf of the community
> and code that I write on Red Hat's behalf.
>
> Lastly, being a maintainer doesn't solve the problem of review
> latency of the code I write. I'm hoping that everyone understands
> that maintainers are still dependent on the receiving help from the
> community they serve to get their own work done.
>
> Ben, let's talk more about the logistics of this offline first
> before making anything official....
Sounds good. I'm AFK on Monday, so I'll ping you later in the week and
we can get together. ;)
Regards,
Ben
_______________________________________________
xfs mailing list
xfs@oss.sgi.com
http://oss.sgi.com/mailman/listinfo/xfs
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 60+ messages in thread
* Re: XFS leadership and a new co-maintainer candidate
2013-11-08 20:46 ` Ben Myers
@ 2013-11-12 17:32 ` Christoph Hellwig
-1 siblings, 0 replies; 60+ messages in thread
From: Christoph Hellwig @ 2013-11-12 17:32 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Ben Myers
Cc: Linus Torvalds, elder, Mark Tinguely, Christoph Hellwig,
linux-kernel, xfs, Ric Wheeler
On Fri, Nov 08, 2013 at 02:46:06PM -0600, Ben Myers wrote:
> That really didn't happen Christoph. It's not in my tree or in a pull request.
I'll take my back room complain back then, but I still think that this
is not a useful way to discuss something like this.
> Linus, let me know what you want to do. I do think we're doing a fair job over
> here, and (geez) I'm just trying to add Mark as my backup since Alex is too
> busy. I know the RH people want more control, and that's understandable, but
> they really don't need to replace me to get their code in. Ouch.
I'd really like to see more diversity in XFS maintainers. The SGI focus
has defintively been an issue again and again because it seems when one
SGI person is too busy the others usually are as well. As mentioned
before there's also been historically a way too high turnover, with the
associated transition pains.
By making sure we have a broader base for the maintainers, and a more
open infrastructure we'll all win. Note that we already had that sort
of instructure on kernel.org, but gave up on it because many people
perceived the effort to re-gain the kernel.org accounts to high.
I would also really like to get a clarification on "I know the RH people
want more control, and that's understandable, but they really don't need
to replace me to get their code in". What specific people are you
worried about an what code? What makes "the RH people" less worthy
to their code in than "the SGI" people.
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 60+ messages in thread
* Re: XFS leadership and a new co-maintainer candidate
@ 2013-11-12 17:32 ` Christoph Hellwig
0 siblings, 0 replies; 60+ messages in thread
From: Christoph Hellwig @ 2013-11-12 17:32 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Ben Myers
Cc: elder, Mark Tinguely, Ric Wheeler, linux-kernel, xfs,
Christoph Hellwig, Linus Torvalds
On Fri, Nov 08, 2013 at 02:46:06PM -0600, Ben Myers wrote:
> That really didn't happen Christoph. It's not in my tree or in a pull request.
I'll take my back room complain back then, but I still think that this
is not a useful way to discuss something like this.
> Linus, let me know what you want to do. I do think we're doing a fair job over
> here, and (geez) I'm just trying to add Mark as my backup since Alex is too
> busy. I know the RH people want more control, and that's understandable, but
> they really don't need to replace me to get their code in. Ouch.
I'd really like to see more diversity in XFS maintainers. The SGI focus
has defintively been an issue again and again because it seems when one
SGI person is too busy the others usually are as well. As mentioned
before there's also been historically a way too high turnover, with the
associated transition pains.
By making sure we have a broader base for the maintainers, and a more
open infrastructure we'll all win. Note that we already had that sort
of instructure on kernel.org, but gave up on it because many people
perceived the effort to re-gain the kernel.org accounts to high.
I would also really like to get a clarification on "I know the RH people
want more control, and that's understandable, but they really don't need
to replace me to get their code in". What specific people are you
worried about an what code? What makes "the RH people" less worthy
to their code in than "the SGI" people.
_______________________________________________
xfs mailing list
xfs@oss.sgi.com
http://oss.sgi.com/mailman/listinfo/xfs
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 60+ messages in thread
* Re: XFS leadership and a new co-maintainer candidate
2013-11-12 17:32 ` Christoph Hellwig
@ 2013-11-12 19:30 ` Ben Myers
-1 siblings, 0 replies; 60+ messages in thread
From: Ben Myers @ 2013-11-12 19:30 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Christoph Hellwig
Cc: Linus Torvalds, elder, Mark Tinguely, linux-kernel, xfs, Ric Wheeler
Hey,
On Tue, Nov 12, 2013 at 09:32:53AM -0800, Christoph Hellwig wrote:
> On Fri, Nov 08, 2013 at 02:46:06PM -0600, Ben Myers wrote:
> > That really didn't happen Christoph. It's not in my tree or in a pull request.
>
> I'll take my back room complain back then, but I still think that this
> is not a useful way to discuss something like this.
Thanks. Tact, Ben, Tact. ;)
> > Linus, let me know what you want to do. I do think we're doing a fair job
> > over here, and (geez) I'm just trying to add Mark as my backup since Alex
> > is too busy. I know the RH people want more control, and that's
> > understandable, but they really don't need to replace me to get their code
> > in. Ouch.
>
> I'd really like to see more diversity in XFS maintainers. The SGI focus has
> defintively been an issue again and again because it seems when one SGI
> person is too busy the others usually are as well. As mentioned before
> there's also been historically a way too high turnover, with the associated
> transition pains.
I think diversity in XFS maintainers is a great idea. How wide of a net are
you suggesting we cast? I guess it sort of depends upon what you feel is the
purpose of the file.
> By making sure we have a broader base for the maintainers, and a more open
> infrastructure we'll all win.
Agreed.
> Note that we already had that sort
> of instructure on kernel.org, but gave up on it because many people
> perceived the effort to re-gain the kernel.org accounts to high.
It is a little difficult to find your way into the web of trust. Not everyone
is in a position to make way to a conference, or to meet people in person. And
even then it can be intimidating to ask for a signature.
> I would also really like to get a clarification on "I know the RH people want
> more control, and that's understandable, but they really don't need to
> replace me to get their code in". What specific people are you worried about
> an what code? What makes "the RH people" less worthy to their code in than
> "the SGI" people.
I'm convinced we're having this discussion for the right reasons, so let's let
that line of discussion die where it is.
Regards,
Ben
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 60+ messages in thread
* Re: XFS leadership and a new co-maintainer candidate
@ 2013-11-12 19:30 ` Ben Myers
0 siblings, 0 replies; 60+ messages in thread
From: Ben Myers @ 2013-11-12 19:30 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Christoph Hellwig
Cc: elder, Mark Tinguely, Linus Torvalds, linux-kernel, xfs, Ric Wheeler
Hey,
On Tue, Nov 12, 2013 at 09:32:53AM -0800, Christoph Hellwig wrote:
> On Fri, Nov 08, 2013 at 02:46:06PM -0600, Ben Myers wrote:
> > That really didn't happen Christoph. It's not in my tree or in a pull request.
>
> I'll take my back room complain back then, but I still think that this
> is not a useful way to discuss something like this.
Thanks. Tact, Ben, Tact. ;)
> > Linus, let me know what you want to do. I do think we're doing a fair job
> > over here, and (geez) I'm just trying to add Mark as my backup since Alex
> > is too busy. I know the RH people want more control, and that's
> > understandable, but they really don't need to replace me to get their code
> > in. Ouch.
>
> I'd really like to see more diversity in XFS maintainers. The SGI focus has
> defintively been an issue again and again because it seems when one SGI
> person is too busy the others usually are as well. As mentioned before
> there's also been historically a way too high turnover, with the associated
> transition pains.
I think diversity in XFS maintainers is a great idea. How wide of a net are
you suggesting we cast? I guess it sort of depends upon what you feel is the
purpose of the file.
> By making sure we have a broader base for the maintainers, and a more open
> infrastructure we'll all win.
Agreed.
> Note that we already had that sort
> of instructure on kernel.org, but gave up on it because many people
> perceived the effort to re-gain the kernel.org accounts to high.
It is a little difficult to find your way into the web of trust. Not everyone
is in a position to make way to a conference, or to meet people in person. And
even then it can be intimidating to ask for a signature.
> I would also really like to get a clarification on "I know the RH people want
> more control, and that's understandable, but they really don't need to
> replace me to get their code in". What specific people are you worried about
> an what code? What makes "the RH people" less worthy to their code in than
> "the SGI" people.
I'm convinced we're having this discussion for the right reasons, so let's let
that line of discussion die where it is.
Regards,
Ben
_______________________________________________
xfs mailing list
xfs@oss.sgi.com
http://oss.sgi.com/mailman/listinfo/xfs
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 60+ messages in thread
* Re: [PATCH] update xfs maintainers
2013-11-08 22:03 ` Ben Myers
@ 2013-11-14 6:22 ` Dave Chinner
-1 siblings, 0 replies; 60+ messages in thread
From: Dave Chinner @ 2013-11-14 6:22 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Ben Myers
Cc: Ric Wheeler, elder, Mark Tinguely, linux-kernel, xfs,
Christoph Hellwig, Linus Torvalds
On Fri, Nov 08, 2013 at 04:03:10PM -0600, Ben Myers wrote:
> From: Ben Myers <bpm@sgi.com>
>
> xfs: update maintainers
>
> Add Dave as maintainer of XFS.
>
> Signed-off-by: Ben Myers <bpm@sgi.com>
> ---
> MAINTAINERS | 2 +-
> 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-)
>
> Index: b/MAINTAINERS
> ===================================================================
> --- a/MAINTAINERS 2013-11-08 15:20:18.935186245 -0600
> +++ b/MAINTAINERS 2013-11-08 15:22:50.685245977 -0600
> @@ -9387,8 +9387,8 @@ F: drivers/xen/*swiotlb*
>
> XFS FILESYSTEM
> P: Silicon Graphics Inc
> +M: Dave Chinner <dchinner@fromorbit.com>
> M: Ben Myers <bpm@sgi.com>
> -M: Alex Elder <elder@kernel.org>
> M: xfs@oss.sgi.com
> L: xfs@oss.sgi.com
> W: http://oss.sgi.com/projects/xfs
Reviewed-by: Dave Chinner <david@fromorbit.com>
--
Dave Chinner
david@fromorbit.com
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 60+ messages in thread
* Re: [PATCH] update xfs maintainers
@ 2013-11-14 6:22 ` Dave Chinner
0 siblings, 0 replies; 60+ messages in thread
From: Dave Chinner @ 2013-11-14 6:22 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Ben Myers
Cc: elder, Mark Tinguely, Linus Torvalds, linux-kernel, xfs,
Christoph Hellwig, Ric Wheeler
On Fri, Nov 08, 2013 at 04:03:10PM -0600, Ben Myers wrote:
> From: Ben Myers <bpm@sgi.com>
>
> xfs: update maintainers
>
> Add Dave as maintainer of XFS.
>
> Signed-off-by: Ben Myers <bpm@sgi.com>
> ---
> MAINTAINERS | 2 +-
> 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-)
>
> Index: b/MAINTAINERS
> ===================================================================
> --- a/MAINTAINERS 2013-11-08 15:20:18.935186245 -0600
> +++ b/MAINTAINERS 2013-11-08 15:22:50.685245977 -0600
> @@ -9387,8 +9387,8 @@ F: drivers/xen/*swiotlb*
>
> XFS FILESYSTEM
> P: Silicon Graphics Inc
> +M: Dave Chinner <dchinner@fromorbit.com>
> M: Ben Myers <bpm@sgi.com>
> -M: Alex Elder <elder@kernel.org>
> M: xfs@oss.sgi.com
> L: xfs@oss.sgi.com
> W: http://oss.sgi.com/projects/xfs
Reviewed-by: Dave Chinner <david@fromorbit.com>
--
Dave Chinner
david@fromorbit.com
_______________________________________________
xfs mailing list
xfs@oss.sgi.com
http://oss.sgi.com/mailman/listinfo/xfs
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 60+ messages in thread
* Re: [PATCH] update xfs maintainers
2013-11-08 22:03 ` Ben Myers
` (3 preceding siblings ...)
(?)
@ 2013-11-14 18:24 ` Alex Elder
-1 siblings, 0 replies; 60+ messages in thread
From: Alex Elder @ 2013-11-14 18:24 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: xfs
On 11/08/2013 04:03 PM, Ben Myers wrote:
> Hey Ric,
>
> On Fri, Nov 08, 2013 at 03:50:21PM -0500, Ric Wheeler wrote:
>> On 11/08/2013 03:46 PM, Ben Myers wrote:
>>> Hey Christoph,
>>>
>>> On Fri, Nov 08, 2013 at 11:34:24AM -0800, Christoph Hellwig wrote:
>>>> On Fri, Nov 08, 2013 at 12:03:37PM -0600, Ben Myers wrote:
>>>>> Mark is replacing Alex as my backup because Alex is really busy at
>>>>> Linaro and asked to be taken off awhile ago. The holiday season is
>>>>> coming up and I fully intend to go off my meds, turn in to Fonzy the
>>>>> bear, and eat my hat. I need someone to watch the shop while I'm off
>>>>> exploring on Mars. I trust Mark to do that because he is totally
>>>>> awesome.
>>>>
>>>> Doing this as an unilateral decisions is not something that will win you
>>>> a fan base.
>>> It's posted for review.
>>>
>>>> While we never had anything reassembling a democracy in Linux Kernel
>>>> development making decisions without even contacting the major
>>>> contributor is wrong, twice so if the maintainer is a relatively minor
>>>> contributor to start with.
>>>>
>>>> Just because it recent came up elsewhere I'd like to recite the
>>>> definition from Trond here again:
>>>>
>>>> http://lists.linux-foundation.org/pipermail/ksummit-2012-discuss/2012-June/000066.html
>>>>
>>>> By many of the creative roles enlisted there it's clear that Dave should
>>>> be the maintainer. He's been the main contributor and chief architect
>>>> for XFS for many year, while the maintainers came and went at the mercy
>>>> of SGI. This is not meant to bad mouth either of you as I think you're
>>>> doing a reasonably good job compared to other maintainers, but at the
>>>> same time the direction is set by other people that have a much longer
>>>> involvement with the project, and having them officially in control
>>>> would help us forward a lot. It would also avoid having to spend
>>>> considerable resources to train every new generation of SGI maintainer.
>>>>
>>>> Coming to and end I would like to maintain Dave Chinner as the primary
>>>> XFS maintainer for all the work he has done as biggest contributor and
>>>> architect of XFS since longer than I can remember, and I would love to
>>>> retain Ben Myers as a co-maintainer for all the good work he has done
>>>> maintaining and reviewing patches since November 2011.
>>> I think we're doing a decent job too. So thanks for that much at least. ;)
>>>> I would also like to use this post as a public venue to condemn the
>>>> unilateral smokey backroom decisions about XFS maintainership that SGI is
>>>> trying to enforce on the community.
>>> That really didn't happen Christoph. It's not in my tree or in a pull request.
>>>
>>> Linus, let me know what you want to do. I do think we're doing a fair job over
>>> here, and (geez) I'm just trying to add Mark as my backup since Alex is too
>>> busy. I know the RH people want more control, and that's understandable, but
>>> they really don't need to replace me to get their code in. Ouch.
>>>
>>> Thanks,
>>> Ben
>>
>> Christoph is not a Red Hat person.
>>
>> Jeff is from Oracle.
>>
>> This is not a Red Hat vs SGI thing,
>
> Sorry if my read on that was wrong.
>
>> Dave simply has earned the right
>> to take on the formal leadership role of maintainer.
>
> Then we're gonna need some Reviewed-bys. ;)
>
> From: Ben Myers <bpm@sgi.com>
>
> xfs: update maintainers
>
> Add Dave as maintainer of XFS.
Just so everybody knows I'm cool with this...
Reviewed by: Alex Elder <elder@kernel.org>
(Or Signed-off-by if that's appropriate.)
-Alex
> Signed-off-by: Ben Myers <bpm@sgi.com>
> ---
> MAINTAINERS | 2 +-
> 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-)
>
> Index: b/MAINTAINERS
> ===================================================================
> --- a/MAINTAINERS 2013-11-08 15:20:18.935186245 -0600
> +++ b/MAINTAINERS 2013-11-08 15:22:50.685245977 -0600
> @@ -9387,8 +9387,8 @@ F: drivers/xen/*swiotlb*
>
> XFS FILESYSTEM
> P: Silicon Graphics Inc
> +M: Dave Chinner <dchinner@fromorbit.com>
> M: Ben Myers <bpm@sgi.com>
> -M: Alex Elder <elder@kernel.org>
> M: xfs@oss.sgi.com
> L: xfs@oss.sgi.com
> W: http://oss.sgi.com/projects/xfs
>
> _______________________________________________
> xfs mailing list
> xfs@oss.sgi.com
> http://oss.sgi.com/mailman/listinfo/xfs
>
_______________________________________________
xfs mailing list
xfs@oss.sgi.com
http://oss.sgi.com/mailman/listinfo/xfs
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 60+ messages in thread
* Re: [PATCH] update xfs maintainers
2013-11-08 22:03 ` Ben Myers
@ 2013-11-14 18:25 ` Alex Elder
-1 siblings, 0 replies; 60+ messages in thread
From: Alex Elder @ 2013-11-14 18:25 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Ben Myers, Ric Wheeler
Cc: elder, Mark Tinguely, linux-kernel, xfs, Christoph Hellwig,
Linus Torvalds
On 11/08/2013 04:03 PM, Ben Myers wrote:
> Hey Ric,
>
> On Fri, Nov 08, 2013 at 03:50:21PM -0500, Ric Wheeler wrote:
>> On 11/08/2013 03:46 PM, Ben Myers wrote:
>>> Hey Christoph,
>>>
>>> On Fri, Nov 08, 2013 at 11:34:24AM -0800, Christoph Hellwig wrote:
>>>> On Fri, Nov 08, 2013 at 12:03:37PM -0600, Ben Myers wrote:
>>>>> Mark is replacing Alex as my backup because Alex is really busy at
>>>>> Linaro and asked to be taken off awhile ago. The holiday season is
>>>>> coming up and I fully intend to go off my meds, turn in to Fonzy the
>>>>> bear, and eat my hat. I need someone to watch the shop while I'm off
>>>>> exploring on Mars. I trust Mark to do that because he is totally
>>>>> awesome.
>>>>
>>>> Doing this as an unilateral decisions is not something that will win you
>>>> a fan base.
>>> It's posted for review.
>>>
>>>> While we never had anything reassembling a democracy in Linux Kernel
>>>> development making decisions without even contacting the major
>>>> contributor is wrong, twice so if the maintainer is a relatively minor
>>>> contributor to start with.
>>>>
>>>> Just because it recent came up elsewhere I'd like to recite the
>>>> definition from Trond here again:
>>>>
>>>> http://lists.linux-foundation.org/pipermail/ksummit-2012-discuss/2012-June/000066.html
>>>>
>>>> By many of the creative roles enlisted there it's clear that Dave should
>>>> be the maintainer. He's been the main contributor and chief architect
>>>> for XFS for many year, while the maintainers came and went at the mercy
>>>> of SGI. This is not meant to bad mouth either of you as I think you're
>>>> doing a reasonably good job compared to other maintainers, but at the
>>>> same time the direction is set by other people that have a much longer
>>>> involvement with the project, and having them officially in control
>>>> would help us forward a lot. It would also avoid having to spend
>>>> considerable resources to train every new generation of SGI maintainer.
>>>>
>>>> Coming to and end I would like to maintain Dave Chinner as the primary
>>>> XFS maintainer for all the work he has done as biggest contributor and
>>>> architect of XFS since longer than I can remember, and I would love to
>>>> retain Ben Myers as a co-maintainer for all the good work he has done
>>>> maintaining and reviewing patches since November 2011.
>>> I think we're doing a decent job too. So thanks for that much at least. ;)
>>>> I would also like to use this post as a public venue to condemn the
>>>> unilateral smokey backroom decisions about XFS maintainership that SGI is
>>>> trying to enforce on the community.
>>> That really didn't happen Christoph. It's not in my tree or in a pull request.
>>>
>>> Linus, let me know what you want to do. I do think we're doing a fair job over
>>> here, and (geez) I'm just trying to add Mark as my backup since Alex is too
>>> busy. I know the RH people want more control, and that's understandable, but
>>> they really don't need to replace me to get their code in. Ouch.
>>>
>>> Thanks,
>>> Ben
>>
>> Christoph is not a Red Hat person.
>>
>> Jeff is from Oracle.
>>
>> This is not a Red Hat vs SGI thing,
>
> Sorry if my read on that was wrong.
>
>> Dave simply has earned the right
>> to take on the formal leadership role of maintainer.
>
> Then we're gonna need some Reviewed-bys. ;)
>
> From: Ben Myers <bpm@sgi.com>
>
> xfs: update maintainers
>
> Add Dave as maintainer of XFS.
>
> Signed-off-by: Ben Myers <bpm@sgi.com>
And just so everybody knows I'm cool with this...
Reviewed-by: Alex Elder <elder@kernel.org>
(Or use Signed-off-by: if you think that's more appropriate.)
-Alex
> ---
> MAINTAINERS | 2 +-
> 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-)
>
> Index: b/MAINTAINERS
> ===================================================================
> --- a/MAINTAINERS 2013-11-08 15:20:18.935186245 -0600
> +++ b/MAINTAINERS 2013-11-08 15:22:50.685245977 -0600
> @@ -9387,8 +9387,8 @@ F: drivers/xen/*swiotlb*
>
> XFS FILESYSTEM
> P: Silicon Graphics Inc
> +M: Dave Chinner <dchinner@fromorbit.com>
> M: Ben Myers <bpm@sgi.com>
> -M: Alex Elder <elder@kernel.org>
> M: xfs@oss.sgi.com
> L: xfs@oss.sgi.com
> W: http://oss.sgi.com/projects/xfs
>
> _______________________________________________
> xfs mailing list
> xfs@oss.sgi.com
> http://oss.sgi.com/mailman/listinfo/xfs
>
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 60+ messages in thread
* Re: [PATCH] update xfs maintainers
@ 2013-11-14 18:25 ` Alex Elder
0 siblings, 0 replies; 60+ messages in thread
From: Alex Elder @ 2013-11-14 18:25 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Ben Myers, Ric Wheeler
Cc: elder, Mark Tinguely, linux-kernel, xfs, Christoph Hellwig,
Linus Torvalds
On 11/08/2013 04:03 PM, Ben Myers wrote:
> Hey Ric,
>
> On Fri, Nov 08, 2013 at 03:50:21PM -0500, Ric Wheeler wrote:
>> On 11/08/2013 03:46 PM, Ben Myers wrote:
>>> Hey Christoph,
>>>
>>> On Fri, Nov 08, 2013 at 11:34:24AM -0800, Christoph Hellwig wrote:
>>>> On Fri, Nov 08, 2013 at 12:03:37PM -0600, Ben Myers wrote:
>>>>> Mark is replacing Alex as my backup because Alex is really busy at
>>>>> Linaro and asked to be taken off awhile ago. The holiday season is
>>>>> coming up and I fully intend to go off my meds, turn in to Fonzy the
>>>>> bear, and eat my hat. I need someone to watch the shop while I'm off
>>>>> exploring on Mars. I trust Mark to do that because he is totally
>>>>> awesome.
>>>>
>>>> Doing this as an unilateral decisions is not something that will win you
>>>> a fan base.
>>> It's posted for review.
>>>
>>>> While we never had anything reassembling a democracy in Linux Kernel
>>>> development making decisions without even contacting the major
>>>> contributor is wrong, twice so if the maintainer is a relatively minor
>>>> contributor to start with.
>>>>
>>>> Just because it recent came up elsewhere I'd like to recite the
>>>> definition from Trond here again:
>>>>
>>>> http://lists.linux-foundation.org/pipermail/ksummit-2012-discuss/2012-June/000066.html
>>>>
>>>> By many of the creative roles enlisted there it's clear that Dave should
>>>> be the maintainer. He's been the main contributor and chief architect
>>>> for XFS for many year, while the maintainers came and went at the mercy
>>>> of SGI. This is not meant to bad mouth either of you as I think you're
>>>> doing a reasonably good job compared to other maintainers, but at the
>>>> same time the direction is set by other people that have a much longer
>>>> involvement with the project, and having them officially in control
>>>> would help us forward a lot. It would also avoid having to spend
>>>> considerable resources to train every new generation of SGI maintainer.
>>>>
>>>> Coming to and end I would like to maintain Dave Chinner as the primary
>>>> XFS maintainer for all the work he has done as biggest contributor and
>>>> architect of XFS since longer than I can remember, and I would love to
>>>> retain Ben Myers as a co-maintainer for all the good work he has done
>>>> maintaining and reviewing patches since November 2011.
>>> I think we're doing a decent job too. So thanks for that much at least. ;)
>>>> I would also like to use this post as a public venue to condemn the
>>>> unilateral smokey backroom decisions about XFS maintainership that SGI is
>>>> trying to enforce on the community.
>>> That really didn't happen Christoph. It's not in my tree or in a pull request.
>>>
>>> Linus, let me know what you want to do. I do think we're doing a fair job over
>>> here, and (geez) I'm just trying to add Mark as my backup since Alex is too
>>> busy. I know the RH people want more control, and that's understandable, but
>>> they really don't need to replace me to get their code in. Ouch.
>>>
>>> Thanks,
>>> Ben
>>
>> Christoph is not a Red Hat person.
>>
>> Jeff is from Oracle.
>>
>> This is not a Red Hat vs SGI thing,
>
> Sorry if my read on that was wrong.
>
>> Dave simply has earned the right
>> to take on the formal leadership role of maintainer.
>
> Then we're gonna need some Reviewed-bys. ;)
>
> From: Ben Myers <bpm@sgi.com>
>
> xfs: update maintainers
>
> Add Dave as maintainer of XFS.
>
> Signed-off-by: Ben Myers <bpm@sgi.com>
And just so everybody knows I'm cool with this...
Reviewed-by: Alex Elder <elder@kernel.org>
(Or use Signed-off-by: if you think that's more appropriate.)
-Alex
> ---
> MAINTAINERS | 2 +-
> 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-)
>
> Index: b/MAINTAINERS
> ===================================================================
> --- a/MAINTAINERS 2013-11-08 15:20:18.935186245 -0600
> +++ b/MAINTAINERS 2013-11-08 15:22:50.685245977 -0600
> @@ -9387,8 +9387,8 @@ F: drivers/xen/*swiotlb*
>
> XFS FILESYSTEM
> P: Silicon Graphics Inc
> +M: Dave Chinner <dchinner@fromorbit.com>
> M: Ben Myers <bpm@sgi.com>
> -M: Alex Elder <elder@kernel.org>
> M: xfs@oss.sgi.com
> L: xfs@oss.sgi.com
> W: http://oss.sgi.com/projects/xfs
>
> _______________________________________________
> xfs mailing list
> xfs@oss.sgi.com
> http://oss.sgi.com/mailman/listinfo/xfs
>
_______________________________________________
xfs mailing list
xfs@oss.sgi.com
http://oss.sgi.com/mailman/listinfo/xfs
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 60+ messages in thread
* Re: [PATCH] update xfs maintainers
2013-11-14 6:22 ` Dave Chinner
@ 2013-11-15 0:33 ` Ben Myers
-1 siblings, 0 replies; 60+ messages in thread
From: Ben Myers @ 2013-11-15 0:33 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Dave Chinner
Cc: elder, Mark Tinguely, Linus Torvalds, linux-kernel, xfs,
Christoph Hellwig, Ric Wheeler
On Thu, Nov 14, 2013 at 05:22:26PM +1100, Dave Chinner wrote:
> On Fri, Nov 08, 2013 at 04:03:10PM -0600, Ben Myers wrote:
> > From: Ben Myers <bpm@sgi.com>
> >
> > xfs: update maintainers
> >
> > Add Dave as maintainer of XFS.
> >
> > Signed-off-by: Ben Myers <bpm@sgi.com>
> > ---
> > MAINTAINERS | 2 +-
> > 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-)
> >
> > Index: b/MAINTAINERS
> > ===================================================================
> > --- a/MAINTAINERS 2013-11-08 15:20:18.935186245 -0600
> > +++ b/MAINTAINERS 2013-11-08 15:22:50.685245977 -0600
> > @@ -9387,8 +9387,8 @@ F: drivers/xen/*swiotlb*
> >
> > XFS FILESYSTEM
> > P: Silicon Graphics Inc
> > +M: Dave Chinner <dchinner@fromorbit.com>
> > M: Ben Myers <bpm@sgi.com>
> > -M: Alex Elder <elder@kernel.org>
> > M: xfs@oss.sgi.com
> > L: xfs@oss.sgi.com
> > W: http://oss.sgi.com/projects/xfs
>
> Reviewed-by: Dave Chinner <david@fromorbit.com>
Applied. ;)
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 60+ messages in thread
* Re: [PATCH] update xfs maintainers
@ 2013-11-15 0:33 ` Ben Myers
0 siblings, 0 replies; 60+ messages in thread
From: Ben Myers @ 2013-11-15 0:33 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Dave Chinner
Cc: elder, Mark Tinguely, Ric Wheeler, linux-kernel, xfs,
Christoph Hellwig, Linus Torvalds
On Thu, Nov 14, 2013 at 05:22:26PM +1100, Dave Chinner wrote:
> On Fri, Nov 08, 2013 at 04:03:10PM -0600, Ben Myers wrote:
> > From: Ben Myers <bpm@sgi.com>
> >
> > xfs: update maintainers
> >
> > Add Dave as maintainer of XFS.
> >
> > Signed-off-by: Ben Myers <bpm@sgi.com>
> > ---
> > MAINTAINERS | 2 +-
> > 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-)
> >
> > Index: b/MAINTAINERS
> > ===================================================================
> > --- a/MAINTAINERS 2013-11-08 15:20:18.935186245 -0600
> > +++ b/MAINTAINERS 2013-11-08 15:22:50.685245977 -0600
> > @@ -9387,8 +9387,8 @@ F: drivers/xen/*swiotlb*
> >
> > XFS FILESYSTEM
> > P: Silicon Graphics Inc
> > +M: Dave Chinner <dchinner@fromorbit.com>
> > M: Ben Myers <bpm@sgi.com>
> > -M: Alex Elder <elder@kernel.org>
> > M: xfs@oss.sgi.com
> > L: xfs@oss.sgi.com
> > W: http://oss.sgi.com/projects/xfs
>
> Reviewed-by: Dave Chinner <david@fromorbit.com>
Applied. ;)
_______________________________________________
xfs mailing list
xfs@oss.sgi.com
http://oss.sgi.com/mailman/listinfo/xfs
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 60+ messages in thread
end of thread, other threads:[~2013-11-15 0:33 UTC | newest]
Thread overview: 60+ messages (download: mbox.gz / follow: Atom feed)
-- links below jump to the message on this page --
2013-11-07 22:02 xfs: update maintainers file Ben Myers
2013-11-07 22:08 ` Mark Tinguely
2013-11-07 22:32 ` [PATCH v2] " Ben Myers
2013-11-07 23:18 ` Alex Elder
2013-11-08 2:23 ` xfs: " Ric Wheeler
2013-11-08 2:30 ` Zhi Yong Wu
2013-11-08 5:24 ` Jeff Liu
2013-11-08 11:03 ` XFS leadership and a new co-maintainer candidate Ric Wheeler
2013-11-08 11:03 ` Ric Wheeler
2013-11-08 18:03 ` Ben Myers
2013-11-08 18:03 ` Ben Myers
2013-11-08 18:09 ` Ric Wheeler
2013-11-08 18:09 ` Ric Wheeler
2013-11-08 19:45 ` Ben Myers
2013-11-08 19:45 ` Ben Myers
2013-11-08 19:34 ` Christoph Hellwig
2013-11-08 19:34 ` Christoph Hellwig
2013-11-08 20:32 ` Ric Wheeler
2013-11-08 20:32 ` Ric Wheeler
2013-11-08 20:46 ` Ben Myers
2013-11-08 20:46 ` Ben Myers
2013-11-08 20:50 ` Ric Wheeler
2013-11-08 20:50 ` Ric Wheeler
2013-11-08 22:03 ` [PATCH] update xfs maintainers Ben Myers
2013-11-08 22:03 ` Ben Myers
2013-11-08 22:07 ` Ric Wheeler
2013-11-08 22:07 ` Ric Wheeler
2013-11-08 22:17 ` Ben Myers
2013-11-08 22:17 ` Ben Myers
2013-11-08 23:32 ` Ric Wheeler
2013-11-08 23:32 ` Ric Wheeler
2013-11-09 23:17 ` Ben Myers
2013-11-09 23:17 ` Ben Myers
2013-11-08 22:59 ` Zhi Yong Wu
2013-11-08 22:59 ` Zhi Yong Wu
2013-11-08 23:44 ` NeilBrown
2013-11-08 23:44 ` NeilBrown
2013-11-09 23:51 ` Ben Myers
2013-11-09 23:51 ` Ben Myers
2013-11-10 0:30 ` Ben Myers
2013-11-10 0:30 ` Ben Myers
2013-11-10 3:13 ` Stan Hoeppner
2013-11-10 3:13 ` Stan Hoeppner
2013-11-10 23:32 ` Dave Chinner
2013-11-10 23:32 ` Dave Chinner
2013-11-10 23:12 ` Dave Chinner
2013-11-10 23:12 ` Dave Chinner
2013-11-11 3:49 ` Ben Myers
2013-11-11 3:49 ` Ben Myers
2013-11-14 6:22 ` Dave Chinner
2013-11-14 6:22 ` Dave Chinner
2013-11-15 0:33 ` Ben Myers
2013-11-15 0:33 ` Ben Myers
2013-11-14 18:24 ` Alex Elder
2013-11-14 18:25 ` Alex Elder
2013-11-14 18:25 ` Alex Elder
2013-11-12 17:32 ` XFS leadership and a new co-maintainer candidate Christoph Hellwig
2013-11-12 17:32 ` Christoph Hellwig
2013-11-12 19:30 ` Ben Myers
2013-11-12 19:30 ` Ben Myers
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.