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 
>> help.
> 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 We'd need to add a few
>  users there.

What else do you have in mind?
As long all users with commit access are member of the 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
> access ;) )

I'd go with the 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
>  accounting).

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.


Reply via email to