Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id ; Sun, 28 Jul 2002 19:56:45 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id ; Sun, 28 Jul 2002 19:56:45 -0400 Received: from hera.cwi.nl ([192.16.191.8]:39156 "EHLO hera.cwi.nl") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id ; Sun, 28 Jul 2002 19:56:44 -0400 From: Andries.Brouwer@cwi.nl Date: Mon, 29 Jul 2002 01:59:42 +0200 (MEST) Message-Id: To: axboe@suse.de, torvalds@transmeta.com Subject: Re: [PATCH] 2.5.28 small REQ_SPECIAL abstraction Cc: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, martin@dalecki.de Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Content-Length: 2432 Lines: 60 On Sun, 28 Jul 2002, Jens Axboe wrote: > But the crap still got merged, sigh... Yet again an excellent point of > why stuff like this should go through the maintainer. Apparently Linus > blindly applies this stuff. Ehh, since there is no proactive maintainer for SCSI, I don't have much choice, do I? SCSI has been maintainerless for the last few years. Right now three people work on it to some degree (Doug Ledford, James Bottomley and you), but I don't get timely patches, and neither does apparently anybody else. Case in point: I was debugging some USB storage issues with Matthew Dharm yesterday, and he sent me patches to the SCSI subsystem that he claims were supposedly considered valid on the scsi mailing list back in May. Guess what? I've not seen the patches from any of the three people I consider closest to being maintainers. So your "should go through the maintainer" complaint is obviously a bunch of bull. Feel free to step up to the plate, but before you do, don't throw rocks in glass houses. Ha, Linus, Yes, an interesting discussion with Matthew Dharm. I have seen several messages discussing the topic today - linux-scsi is not silent about it. You killed the idea of maintainers yourself, proclaiming that you did not work with maintainers but with lieutenants. In the mathematical world, if someone wants to publish a paper, it is sent to a handful of referees. These reply "reject", or "accept", or "accept, but correct the following mistakes ...", or procrastinate so much that the editor takes some random decision herself. Such a system would not be unreasonable in the Linux world. A SCSI patch is sent to linux-scsi and also to the five people active today in the area. They reply, preferably both to you and on linux-scsi, and if within one or two days after a positive reply no negative reply comes in, then apparently there are no objections. In the absence of a single active maintainer, peer review is a good alternative. Andries [By the way, have you asked these people to be maintainer? Many people are too modest to suggest themselves, but will accept when asked.] - 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/