Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id ; Wed, 30 Jan 2002 04:21:36 -0500 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id ; Wed, 30 Jan 2002 04:21:23 -0500 Received: from femail45.sdc1.sfba.home.com ([24.254.60.39]:8119 "EHLO femail45.sdc1.sfba.home.com") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id ; Wed, 30 Jan 2002 04:21:01 -0500 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII From: Rob Landley To: Linus Torvalds , Daniel Phillips Subject: Re: A modest proposal -- We need a patch penguin Date: Wed, 30 Jan 2002 04:22:10 -0500 X-Mailer: KMail [version 1.3.1] Cc: Alexander Viro , Ingo Molnar , , Rik van Riel In-Reply-To: In-Reply-To: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7BIT Message-Id: <20020130092100.KCMT17610.femail45.sdc1.sfba.home.com@there> Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On Wednesday 30 January 2002 02:48 am, Linus Torvalds wrote: > One thing intrigued me in this thread - which was not the discussion > itself, but the fact that Rik is using bitkeeper. > > How many other people are actually using bitkeeper already for the kernel? > I know the ppc guys have, for a long time, but who else is? bk, unlike > CVS, should at least be _able_ to handle a "network of people" kind of > approach. One thing that's intrigued ME is the explanation of the hierarchy of maintainers. There ARE specific people that patches should be reviewed by before being sent to you, there even seems to be a directed graph of them. It would be kind of nice if it was documented enough that at least the maintainers in the maintainers list knew what it was, and who they should forward stuff on to after reviewing it. That might go a ways towards addressing the "hitting resend isn't working" problem... You've said that the tier under you (who you DO semi-reliably accept patches from) is a group of ten to twenty people. If we knew who those people were, we could bug them to name THEIR secretary lists (or figure it out from the maintainers list)... In your original response to the patch penguin proposal, you mentioned: >The fact is, we've had "patch penguins" pretty much forever, and they >are called subsystem maintainers. They maintain their own subsystem, ie >people like David Miller (networking), Kai Germaschewski (ISDN), Greg KH >(USB), Ben Collins (firewire), Al Viro (VFS), Andrew Morton (ext3), Ingo >Molnar (scheduler), Jeff Garzik (network drivers) etc etc. You also said: > The VM stuff right now seems to be Andrea, Dave or you yourself. That was responding to Rik van Riel, I'm guessing "Dave" is Dave Jones(?), and of course Andrea would be Andrea Arcangeli. It seems that Andrea Arcangeli is the default VM maintainer, and that Dave Jones is gradually getting sucked into Alan Cox's old position as "miscelaneous maintainer" putting out a "this needs wider testing" tree. The above seems to be about the full list I can assemble from recent emails. (You've also used David Miller again as an example in a later email, you put Paul Mackerras as a subordinate maintainer under him, and "Greg" (Kroah-Hartmann) had Johannes Erdfelt under him handling UHCI. This isn't really new information about the top ten, more like some examples to help in tree building under them.) This is eleven "top level" maintainers, one of whom is handling ext3 which sounds kind of odd... (If David Miller is networking and Jeff Garzik is network drivers, would there be a "filesystem drivers" guy paired off with Al Viro? Does EXT2 go through Andrew Morton as well? Would Hans Reiser submit directly to you for ReiserFS patches, or should he get a signoff from... Um... Andrew? Al? Try to get it into the -dj tree first? Could I have a hint?) To clarify what I'm aiming at: Are these eleven people a significant portion of the group of people who, if code makes it as far as them and they sign off on it, you'd then be willing to at least review it and if necessary explicitly reject? [1] Should some of them be forwarding their patches to somebody other than you? Are there more people on the list that lower level maintainers should be funneling patches to in order to eventually get them into your tree? A two tier maintainer system definitely sounds like an improvement if that will help the process scale. It's just that today is the first I've heard about it, and I had TRIED to study the situation before opening my big mouth... > Linus Rob [Footnote 1] Implicit rejections can be REALLY stressful when combined with delaying the of inclusion of code that isn't actually rejected, but just not convenient to include right now. It means that code that isn't merged immediately soon starts to smell of failure. The throught process seems to go "If Linus hasn't accepted it, and Linus ignores patches he's rejecting, maybe he's rejecting this. If so, the reason is something we need to figure out on our own, so let's all pile on the code and start badmouthing it until we figure out why Linus doesn't like it." This can easily go beyond useful code review into pointless flame wars. Arranging a system where it's possible to have some kind of progress indicator (even a "distance from Linus" index as patches progress through the maintainer tree) seems like a good thing to me... - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/