On 10/18/2016 09:15 PM, Boris Brezillon wrote: > On Tue, 18 Oct 2016 11:46:51 -0700 > Brian Norris <computersforpe...@gmail.com> wrote: > >> + others >> >> On Tue, Oct 18, 2016 at 06:15:23PM +0200, Richard Weinberger wrote: >>> On 18.10.2016 17:55, Cyrille Pitchen wrote: >>>> Le 18/10/2016 à 17:30, Richard Weinberger a écrit : >>>>> On Tue, Oct 18, 2016 at 5:17 PM, Marek Vasut <ma...@denx.de> wrote: >>>>>> On 10/18/2016 04:58 PM, Cyrille Pitchen wrote: >>>>>>> I would like to volunteer as a maintainer for the SPI NOR part of the >>>>>>> MTD >>>>>>> subsystem. >> >> Awesome! >> >>>>>>> Over the last months, a significant number of SPI NOR related patches >>>>>>> have >>>>>>> been submitted, some of them have been reviewed, but very few have >>>>>>> finally >>>>>>> been merged. Hence, the number of pending SPI NOR related patches >>>>>>> continues >>>>>>> to increase over the time. >> >> Agreed, and sorry. But I guess the delays had the side effect of forcing >> peoples hands, instead of delaying the inevitable. >> >>>>>>> Through my work on SPI NOR memories from many manufacturers over the >>>>>>> last >>>>>>> two years, I've gained a solid understanding of this technology. >>>>>>> I've already helped by reviewing patches from other contributors on the >>>>>>> mailing list, and would like to help getting those patches integrated by >>>>>>> volunteering as a maintainer for this specific area. >> >> Agreed. >> >>>>>>> Boris Brezillon has already stepped up as a maintainer for the NAND >>>>>>> sub-subsystem in MTD, and the SPI NOR sub-subsystem could be handled in >>>>>>> the same way: I would be reviewing patches touching this area, >>>>>>> collecting >>>>>>> them and sending pull requests to Brian Norris. >>>>> >>>>> I'd suggest you send pull requests directly to Linus. >>>>> Same for NAND. >> >> I could go with either method I suppose, but I don't personally like the >> idea of splitting out the various bits of MTD into *completely* >> independent lines of development. As long as someone (not necessarily >> me) can manage pulling the sub-subsystems together, I think it would >> make sense to have 1 PR for Linus for non-UBI/FS MTD changes. >> >>>>>>> Signed-off-by: Cyrille Pitchen <cyrille.pitc...@atmel.com> >>>>>> >>>>>> Let me know if you need co-maintainer. >>>>> >>>>> +1 >> >> +1, I think I've not-so-subtly suggested this to Marek previously. > > Okay, that's all great news! > You can add my ack after adding Marek as a co-maintainer. > >> >>>>> While we are here, what about forming a MTD maintainer team? >>>>> This concept works very well for other subsystems. >>>>> >>>> >>>> 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 infradead.org? We'd need to add a few >> users there. >> >> 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 ;) ) >> >> 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). > > I really think we should keep separate trees for the spi-nor and nand > sub-subsystems, and then do PRs. The question is, how do we agree that > a PR should be pulled in the MTD tree. > > I guess we could have a simple rule like, if it's been reviewed by at > least X person (I guess 2 is acceptable), then we can merge it. > >> >> 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. > > Richard and David had some plans for the mtd-utils repo, and I think > they already have the permissions to push things to this repo, so the > best solution is probably to officially promote them maintainers of > mtd-utils. I would volunteer to maintain it together with Richard.
As has been previously mentioned, we did a major overhaul and merged lots of fixes locally. AFAIK Richard already has push permissions for the mtd-utils tree on infradead.org, so it should be just a matter of making it official? David