On Wed, Apr 4, 2018 at 12:12 PM, Emil Velikov <emil.l.veli...@gmail.com> wrote: > On 22 March 2018 at 00:39, Ilia Mirkin <imir...@alum.mit.edu> wrote: >> Just one bit of feedback, for the rest I either agree or have no opinion: >> >> On Wed, Mar 21, 2018 at 8:28 PM, Emil Velikov <emil.l.veli...@gmail.com> >> wrote: >>> * unfit and late nominations: >>> * any rejections that are unfit based on the existing criteria can >>> be merged as long as: >>> * subsystem specific patches are approved by the team >>> maintainer(s). >>> * patches that cover multiple subsystems are approved by 50%+1 >>> of the maintainers of the affected subsystems. >> >> I don't think 50% + 1 is workable. That would mean for a core mesa >> patch, one would have to get like 5+ people to ack it. Seems like a >> lot. (And I suspect will lead to debates about how to count "affected" >> subsystems.) IMHO 2 is enough, i.e. the maintainer that wants it, and >> another maintainer who thinks it's reasonable. >> > The presumption of 5+ people is based that we'll get at least 8 > sub-system maintainers.
That's what I mean -- you'll get quibbling over who's involved and who's not. There are like 10 different drivers, each with a separate maintainer, and they can all be variously affected by a patch. Figuring out how to "count" properly is complicated and seemingly unnecessary. 2's enough - this isn't for a poll, it's for a "someone other than me thinks this is important", to counter a "unfit and late nomination" style argument from the release engineer. Getting a lot of people to *actively* support a patch is a straight path to nothing happening. Getting one other person (out of the maintainer group) seems reasonable. These types of (social) systems are fairly self-policing -- if we really do run into serious problems, they can be addressed then. -ilia _______________________________________________ mesa-dev mailing list mesa-dev@lists.freedesktop.org https://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/mesa-dev
