On 18.10.2016 20:46, Brian Norris wrote:
>>> I totally agree with you so if Marek and you volunteer as well, your help
>>> will be precious!
>> Well, my SPI-NOR fu is not strong. And UBI/UBIFS keeps me busy.
>> But if Brian likes the idea of having a MTD maintainer team I'll offer my
> I think a MTD maintainer team would be good to try, and I think it might
> help to resolve my above complaint; a maintainer team could help to make
> sure that everything can be coordinated in one tree + pull request,
> without adding too many extra points of failure (e.g., so we don't have
> awesome SPI NOR and NAND trees get bogged down by a slow MTD pull).
> Random thoughts:
> Does it make sense to still use infradead.org? We'd need to add a few
> users there.
What else do you have in mind? kernel.org?
As long all users with commit access are member of the kernel.org web of
trust any host should be fine.
> Trust? I have met most of you in person, but not all, and I don't have
> signed keys from all of you. I don't know what the best way to get a
> group-writeable repo with credentials for all of you that we can trust.
> (FWIW, neither Artem nor David met me, but they saw it fit to grant me
> infradead.org access ;) )
I'd go with the kernel.org web of trust.
> Coordination: how do we avoid stepping on each other's toes? We'd have
> to definitely 100% kill 'git push -f' and 'git rebase'. Also, would
> patchwork help or hurt us here? I think Boris and I have been sort of
> using it, but it's still got a pretty good backlog (partly real --
> i.e., the cause for this thread; and partly artificial, due to
patchwork should be a good start. We could also try the tip scripts used
by the x86 maintainer team.
> What to do about mtd-utils.git? That's been languishing a bit, and it
> has no release schedule. Maybe we want a plan for that too.
I'd volunteer to nurse it together with David Oberhollenzer.
In fact, David is currently preparing a v2 pre-release of mtd-utils.
We reworked a lot of code and added new tools.