Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 23.128.96.18 as permitted sender) client-ip=23.128.96.18;
Date:   Thu, 16 Sep 2021 17:00:46 -0400
From:   Konstantin Ryabitsev <konstantin@linuxfoundation.org>
To:     Chris Mason <clm@fb.com>
Cc:     James Bottomley <James.Bottomley@hansenpartnership.com>,
        Theodore Ts'o <tytso@mit.edu>,
        Johannes Weiner <hannes@cmpxchg.org>,
        Kent Overstreet <kent.overstreet@gmail.com>,
        Matthew Wilcox <willy@infradead.org>,
        Linus Torvalds <torvalds@linux-foundation.org>,
        "linux-mm@kvack.org" <linux-mm@kvack.org>,
        linux-fsdevel <linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org>,
        "linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
        Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org>,
        "Darrick J. Wong" <djwong@kernel.org>,
        Christoph Hellwig <hch@infradead.org>,
        David Howells <dhowells@redhat.com>,
        "ksummit@lists.linux.dev" <ksummit@lists.linux.dev>
Subject: Re: [MAINTAINER SUMMIT] Folios as a potential Kernel/Maintainers
 Summit topic?
Message-ID: <20210916210046.ourwrk6uqeisi555@meerkat.local>
References: <YUIwgGzBqX6ZiGgk@mit.edu>
 <f7b70227bac9a684320068b362d28fcade6b65b9.camel@HansenPartnership.com>
 <YUI5bk/94yHPZIqJ@mit.edu>
 <17242A0C-3613-41BB-84E4-2617A182216E@fb.com>
 <f066615c0e2c6fe990fa5c19dd1c17d649bcb03a.camel@HansenPartnership.com>
 <E655F510-14EB-4F40-BCF8-C5266C07443F@fb.com>
 <33a2000f56d51284e2df0cfcd704e93977684b59.camel@HansenPartnership.com>
 <261D65D8-7273-4884-BD01-2BF8331F4034@fb.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: inline
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
In-Reply-To: <261D65D8-7273-4884-BD01-2BF8331F4034@fb.com>
Precedence: bulk

On Thu, Sep 16, 2021 at 08:38:13PM +0000, Chris Mason wrote:
> Agree here.  Mailing lists make it really hard to figure out when these
> conflicts are resolved, which is why I love using google docs for that part.

I would caution that Google docs aren't universally accessible. China blocks
access to many Google resources, and now Russia purportedly does the same.
Perhaps a similar effect can be reached with a git repository with limited
commit access? At least then commits can be attested to individual authors.

> A living document with a single source of truth on key design points, work
> remaining, and stakeholders who are responsible for ack/nack decisions.
> Basically if you don’t have edit permissions on the document, you’re not one
> of the people that can say no.
> 
> If you do have edit permissions, you’re expected to be on board with the
> overall goal and help work through the design/validation/code/etc until
> you’re ready to ack it, or until it’s clear the whole thing isn’t going to
> work.  If you feel you need to have edit permissions, you’ve got a defined
> set of people to talk with about it.
> 
> It can’t completely replace the mailing lists, but it can take a lot of the
> archeology out of understanding a given patch series and figuring out if
> it’s actually ready to go.

You can combine the two and use mailing lists as the source of truth by using
Link: tags in commits to make it easy to verify history and provenance.

-K