Re: [Tech-board-discuss] [PATCH] Documentation: Linux Contribution Maturity Model and the wider community

From: Mark Brown <broonie@kernel.org>
To: Finn Thain <fthain@linux-m68k.org>
Cc: Theodore Ts'o <tytso@mit.edu>,
	linux-doc@vger.kernel.org,
	tech-board-discuss@lists.linux-foundation.org,
	Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@linuxfoundation.org>,
	linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [Tech-board-discuss] [PATCH] Documentation: Linux Contribution Maturity Model and the wider community
Date: Fri, 23 Jun 2023 02:45:37 +0100	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <ZJT5QYBxmGWneAOo@finisterre.sirena.org.uk> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <f54e2fc8-0aba-3b62-7870-023f25e11e8f@linux-m68k.org>

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 2078 bytes --]

On Fri, Jun 23, 2023 at 10:52:08AM +1000, Finn Thain wrote:
> On Thu, 22 Jun 2023, Theodore Ts'o wrote:

> > As far as getting upset if the latest release doesn't run on "suitable 
> > hardware", if they are upset they can submit a bug report, or better 
> > yet, submit a patch to address the situation. 

> I think you've missed my point, which was that some maintainers require 
> that released code is executed promptly otherwise it should be deleted. 
> Please see also, 
> https://lore.kernel.org/all/7c2a6687-9c4e-efed-5e25-774b582e9a27@linux-m68k.org/

Looking at that thread I'm not sure that's an entirely accurate reading
of what was being suggested.

> > And of course, if remove a driver because it is unmaintained and is for 
> > obsolete hardware, if someone shows up saying (a) they care about that 
> > driver, and (b) they are willing to volunteer to maintain the driver, or 
> > are willing to pay someone to maintain the driver, and they have 
> > contracted with XYZ developer working for ABC company, then it's super 
> > simple to revert the driver removal.  It is, after all, only a "git 
> > revert" away.

> > I do have to concur with Greg that relying on this as way to get new 
> > people to be work on Linux kernel is a *terrible* idea.  The number of 
> > people who are interested in retro-computing is quite small, in my 
> > experience.

> Given that products like mobile phones etc. often get made obsolete within 
> a few years from launch, my guess is that billions of users are now 
> interested in retro-computing.

The whole situation with embedded devices and their lifespans is a bit
different to that for a lot of more PC style hardware, and TBH if anyone
is actually interested in the hardware it's much more likely that the
support will be actively maintained and the issue just won't arise.  The
pushback with obsolete devices is more about a lack of anyone paying
attention to them and them causing trouble as a result of that than it
is about cases where someone is actively looking at them.

[-- Attachment #2: signature.asc --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 488 bytes --]