On 10/18/2016 11:10 PM, David Oberhollenzer wrote:
> 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?

Yes please, I saw some of your patches via Richard and they were nice.

Best regards,
Marek Vasut

Reply via email to