On Sun, Mar 23, 2014 at 12:58 PM, Vladimir 'φ-coder/phcoder' Serbinenko < [email protected]> wrote:
> On 23.03.2014 19:24, ron minnich wrote: > > So I believe the problem is not the idea of gatekeepers, but the > > manner in which they are proposed to work. Can you tell me what about > > this upsets you? I want to understand. > The problem is that the proposal is that all commits go through > gatekeepers. It's bottleneck. It makes much more sense to have per-path > maintainers and tiered code. > E.g. we could keep all boards rather than shooting them and the ones > that are considered to be too old can have less stringent requirements > on commits. This will free the qualified people time to concentrate on > boards where it's most important. > Also it will benefit "unimportant" boards as well as they'll be easier > to keep. > Then per-path maintainer and gatekeeper are contradictory concepts. How > one can be maintainer if he can't commit to his maintained code. I feel, > for example, that nehalem code and resulting boards are my > responsibility and I should be able to commit there easily. Getekeeprs > will make this impossible as I'm more or less the only one who knows > nehalem code *and* cares about it. > I feel like the top-level maintainers would be only about overall > structure, not about details in Board:foo/bar they've never even seen > and solving disputes. Making everything go through 6 people is > unfeasible as 6 people can't represent broad range of interests and some > parts of code will get neglected more that they have to be of simple > scarceness of resources. > Without speaking for anyone or about anything else, can Stefan comment on this proposal by Vladimir? It seems relatively cool and reasonable. I publicly, sincerely apologize for my part in heating this thread up. David
-- coreboot mailing list: [email protected] http://www.coreboot.org/mailman/listinfo/coreboot
