Re: [PATCH] update xfs maintainers
On Thu, Nov 14, 2013 at 05:22:26PM +1100, Dave Chinner wrote: > On Fri, Nov 08, 2013 at 04:03:10PM -0600, Ben Myers wrote: > > From: Ben Myers > > > > xfs: update maintainers > > > > Add Dave as maintainer of XFS. > > > > Signed-off-by: Ben Myers > > --- > > MAINTAINERS |2 +- > > 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-) > > > > Index: b/MAINTAINERS > > === > > --- a/MAINTAINERS 2013-11-08 15:20:18.935186245 -0600 > > +++ b/MAINTAINERS 2013-11-08 15:22:50.685245977 -0600 > > @@ -9387,8 +9387,8 @@ F:drivers/xen/*swiotlb* > > > > XFS FILESYSTEM > > P: Silicon Graphics Inc > > +M: Dave Chinner > > M: Ben Myers > > -M: Alex Elder > > M: x...@oss.sgi.com > > L: x...@oss.sgi.com > > W: http://oss.sgi.com/projects/xfs > > Reviewed-by: Dave Chinner Applied. ;) -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Re: [PATCH] update xfs maintainers
On 11/08/2013 04:03 PM, Ben Myers wrote: > Hey Ric, > > On Fri, Nov 08, 2013 at 03:50:21PM -0500, Ric Wheeler wrote: >> On 11/08/2013 03:46 PM, Ben Myers wrote: >>> Hey Christoph, >>> >>> On Fri, Nov 08, 2013 at 11:34:24AM -0800, Christoph Hellwig wrote: On Fri, Nov 08, 2013 at 12:03:37PM -0600, Ben Myers wrote: > Mark is replacing Alex as my backup because Alex is really busy at > Linaro and asked to be taken off awhile ago. The holiday season is > coming up and I fully intend to go off my meds, turn in to Fonzy the > bear, and eat my hat. I need someone to watch the shop while I'm off > exploring on Mars. I trust Mark to do that because he is totally > awesome. Doing this as an unilateral decisions is not something that will win you a fan base. >>> It's posted for review. >>> While we never had anything reassembling a democracy in Linux Kernel development making decisions without even contacting the major contributor is wrong, twice so if the maintainer is a relatively minor contributor to start with. Just because it recent came up elsewhere I'd like to recite the definition from Trond here again: http://lists.linux-foundation.org/pipermail/ksummit-2012-discuss/2012-June/66.html By many of the creative roles enlisted there it's clear that Dave should be the maintainer. He's been the main contributor and chief architect for XFS for many year, while the maintainers came and went at the mercy of SGI. This is not meant to bad mouth either of you as I think you're doing a reasonably good job compared to other maintainers, but at the same time the direction is set by other people that have a much longer involvement with the project, and having them officially in control would help us forward a lot. It would also avoid having to spend considerable resources to train every new generation of SGI maintainer. Coming to and end I would like to maintain Dave Chinner as the primary XFS maintainer for all the work he has done as biggest contributor and architect of XFS since longer than I can remember, and I would love to retain Ben Myers as a co-maintainer for all the good work he has done maintaining and reviewing patches since November 2011. >>> I think we're doing a decent job too. So thanks for that much at least. ;) I would also like to use this post as a public venue to condemn the unilateral smokey backroom decisions about XFS maintainership that SGI is trying to enforce on the community. >>> That really didn't happen Christoph. It's not in my tree or in a pull >>> request. >>> >>> Linus, let me know what you want to do. I do think we're doing a fair job >>> over >>> here, and (geez) I'm just trying to add Mark as my backup since Alex is too >>> busy. I know the RH people want more control, and that's understandable, >>> but >>> they really don't need to replace me to get their code in. Ouch. >>> >>> Thanks, >>> Ben >> >> Christoph is not a Red Hat person. >> >> Jeff is from Oracle. >> >> This is not a Red Hat vs SGI thing, > > Sorry if my read on that was wrong. > >> Dave simply has earned the right >> to take on the formal leadership role of maintainer. > > Then we're gonna need some Reviewed-bys. ;) > > From: Ben Myers > > xfs: update maintainers > > Add Dave as maintainer of XFS. > > Signed-off-by: Ben Myers And just so everybody knows I'm cool with this... Reviewed-by: Alex Elder (Or use Signed-off-by: if you think that's more appropriate.) -Alex > --- > MAINTAINERS |2 +- > 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-) > > Index: b/MAINTAINERS > === > --- a/MAINTAINERS 2013-11-08 15:20:18.935186245 -0600 > +++ b/MAINTAINERS 2013-11-08 15:22:50.685245977 -0600 > @@ -9387,8 +9387,8 @@ F: drivers/xen/*swiotlb* > > XFS FILESYSTEM > P: Silicon Graphics Inc > +M: Dave Chinner > M: Ben Myers > -M: Alex Elder > M: x...@oss.sgi.com > L: x...@oss.sgi.com > W: http://oss.sgi.com/projects/xfs > > ___ > xfs mailing list > x...@oss.sgi.com > http://oss.sgi.com/mailman/listinfo/xfs > -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Re: [PATCH] update xfs maintainers
On 11/08/2013 04:03 PM, Ben Myers wrote: Hey Ric, On Fri, Nov 08, 2013 at 03:50:21PM -0500, Ric Wheeler wrote: On 11/08/2013 03:46 PM, Ben Myers wrote: Hey Christoph, On Fri, Nov 08, 2013 at 11:34:24AM -0800, Christoph Hellwig wrote: On Fri, Nov 08, 2013 at 12:03:37PM -0600, Ben Myers wrote: Mark is replacing Alex as my backup because Alex is really busy at Linaro and asked to be taken off awhile ago. The holiday season is coming up and I fully intend to go off my meds, turn in to Fonzy the bear, and eat my hat. I need someone to watch the shop while I'm off exploring on Mars. I trust Mark to do that because he is totally awesome. Doing this as an unilateral decisions is not something that will win you a fan base. It's posted for review. While we never had anything reassembling a democracy in Linux Kernel development making decisions without even contacting the major contributor is wrong, twice so if the maintainer is a relatively minor contributor to start with. Just because it recent came up elsewhere I'd like to recite the definition from Trond here again: http://lists.linux-foundation.org/pipermail/ksummit-2012-discuss/2012-June/66.html By many of the creative roles enlisted there it's clear that Dave should be the maintainer. He's been the main contributor and chief architect for XFS for many year, while the maintainers came and went at the mercy of SGI. This is not meant to bad mouth either of you as I think you're doing a reasonably good job compared to other maintainers, but at the same time the direction is set by other people that have a much longer involvement with the project, and having them officially in control would help us forward a lot. It would also avoid having to spend considerable resources to train every new generation of SGI maintainer. Coming to and end I would like to maintain Dave Chinner as the primary XFS maintainer for all the work he has done as biggest contributor and architect of XFS since longer than I can remember, and I would love to retain Ben Myers as a co-maintainer for all the good work he has done maintaining and reviewing patches since November 2011. I think we're doing a decent job too. So thanks for that much at least. ;) I would also like to use this post as a public venue to condemn the unilateral smokey backroom decisions about XFS maintainership that SGI is trying to enforce on the community. That really didn't happen Christoph. It's not in my tree or in a pull request. Linus, let me know what you want to do. I do think we're doing a fair job over here, and (geez) I'm just trying to add Mark as my backup since Alex is too busy. I know the RH people want more control, and that's understandable, but they really don't need to replace me to get their code in. Ouch. Thanks, Ben Christoph is not a Red Hat person. Jeff is from Oracle. This is not a Red Hat vs SGI thing, Sorry if my read on that was wrong. Dave simply has earned the right to take on the formal leadership role of maintainer. Then we're gonna need some Reviewed-bys. ;) From: Ben Myers b...@sgi.com xfs: update maintainers Add Dave as maintainer of XFS. Signed-off-by: Ben Myers b...@sgi.com And just so everybody knows I'm cool with this... Reviewed-by: Alex Elder el...@kernel.org (Or use Signed-off-by: if you think that's more appropriate.) -Alex --- MAINTAINERS |2 +- 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-) Index: b/MAINTAINERS === --- a/MAINTAINERS 2013-11-08 15:20:18.935186245 -0600 +++ b/MAINTAINERS 2013-11-08 15:22:50.685245977 -0600 @@ -9387,8 +9387,8 @@ F: drivers/xen/*swiotlb* XFS FILESYSTEM P: Silicon Graphics Inc +M: Dave Chinner dchin...@fromorbit.com M: Ben Myers b...@sgi.com -M: Alex Elder el...@kernel.org M: x...@oss.sgi.com L: x...@oss.sgi.com W: http://oss.sgi.com/projects/xfs ___ xfs mailing list x...@oss.sgi.com http://oss.sgi.com/mailman/listinfo/xfs -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line unsubscribe linux-kernel in the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Re: [PATCH] update xfs maintainers
On Thu, Nov 14, 2013 at 05:22:26PM +1100, Dave Chinner wrote: On Fri, Nov 08, 2013 at 04:03:10PM -0600, Ben Myers wrote: From: Ben Myers b...@sgi.com xfs: update maintainers Add Dave as maintainer of XFS. Signed-off-by: Ben Myers b...@sgi.com --- MAINTAINERS |2 +- 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-) Index: b/MAINTAINERS === --- a/MAINTAINERS 2013-11-08 15:20:18.935186245 -0600 +++ b/MAINTAINERS 2013-11-08 15:22:50.685245977 -0600 @@ -9387,8 +9387,8 @@ F:drivers/xen/*swiotlb* XFS FILESYSTEM P: Silicon Graphics Inc +M: Dave Chinner dchin...@fromorbit.com M: Ben Myers b...@sgi.com -M: Alex Elder el...@kernel.org M: x...@oss.sgi.com L: x...@oss.sgi.com W: http://oss.sgi.com/projects/xfs Reviewed-by: Dave Chinner da...@fromorbit.com Applied. ;) -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line unsubscribe linux-kernel in the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Re: [PATCH] update xfs maintainers
On Fri, Nov 08, 2013 at 04:03:10PM -0600, Ben Myers wrote: > From: Ben Myers > > xfs: update maintainers > > Add Dave as maintainer of XFS. > > Signed-off-by: Ben Myers > --- > MAINTAINERS |2 +- > 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-) > > Index: b/MAINTAINERS > === > --- a/MAINTAINERS 2013-11-08 15:20:18.935186245 -0600 > +++ b/MAINTAINERS 2013-11-08 15:22:50.685245977 -0600 > @@ -9387,8 +9387,8 @@ F: drivers/xen/*swiotlb* > > XFS FILESYSTEM > P: Silicon Graphics Inc > +M: Dave Chinner > M: Ben Myers > -M: Alex Elder > M: x...@oss.sgi.com > L: x...@oss.sgi.com > W: http://oss.sgi.com/projects/xfs Reviewed-by: Dave Chinner -- Dave Chinner da...@fromorbit.com -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Re: [PATCH] update xfs maintainers
On Fri, Nov 08, 2013 at 04:03:10PM -0600, Ben Myers wrote: From: Ben Myers b...@sgi.com xfs: update maintainers Add Dave as maintainer of XFS. Signed-off-by: Ben Myers b...@sgi.com --- MAINTAINERS |2 +- 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-) Index: b/MAINTAINERS === --- a/MAINTAINERS 2013-11-08 15:20:18.935186245 -0600 +++ b/MAINTAINERS 2013-11-08 15:22:50.685245977 -0600 @@ -9387,8 +9387,8 @@ F: drivers/xen/*swiotlb* XFS FILESYSTEM P: Silicon Graphics Inc +M: Dave Chinner dchin...@fromorbit.com M: Ben Myers b...@sgi.com -M: Alex Elder el...@kernel.org M: x...@oss.sgi.com L: x...@oss.sgi.com W: http://oss.sgi.com/projects/xfs Reviewed-by: Dave Chinner da...@fromorbit.com -- Dave Chinner da...@fromorbit.com -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line unsubscribe linux-kernel in the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Re: [PATCH] update xfs maintainers
Hey Dave, On Mon, Nov 11, 2013 at 10:12:41AM +1100, Dave Chinner wrote: > On Sat, Nov 09, 2013 at 06:30:49PM -0600, Ben Myers wrote: > > On Sat, Nov 09, 2013 at 05:51:30PM -0600, Ben Myers wrote: > > > On Sat, Nov 09, 2013 at 10:44:24AM +1100, NeilBrown wrote: > > > > On Sat, 9 Nov 2013 06:59:00 +0800 Zhi Yong Wu > > > > wrote: > > > > > On Sat, Nov 9, 2013 at 6:03 AM, Ben Myers wrote: > > > > > > On Fri, Nov 08, 2013 at 03:50:21PM -0500, Ric Wheeler wrote: > > > > > >> On 11/08/2013 03:46 PM, Ben Myers wrote: > > > > > >> >Hey Christoph, > > > > > >> > > > > > > >> >On Fri, Nov 08, 2013 at 11:34:24AM -0800, Christoph Hellwig wrote: > > > > > >> >>On Fri, Nov 08, 2013 at 12:03:37PM -0600, Ben Myers wrote: > > > > > >> >>>Mark is replacing Alex as my backup because Alex is really busy > > > > > >> >>>at > > > > > >> >>>Linaro and asked to be taken off awhile ago. The holiday > > > > > >> >>>season is > > > > > >> >>>coming up and I fully intend to go off my meds, turn in to > > > > > >> >>>Fonzy the > > > > > >> >>>bear, and eat my hat. I need someone to watch the shop while > > > > > >> >>>I'm off > > > > > >> >>>exploring on Mars. I trust Mark to do that because he is > > > > > >> >>>totally > > > > > >> >>>awesome. > > > > > >> >> > > > > > >> >>Doing this as an unilateral decisions is not something that will > > > > > >> >>win you > > > > > >> >>a fan base. > > > > > >> >It's posted for review. > > > > > >> > > > > > > >> >>While we never had anything reassembling a democracy in Linux > > > > > >> >>Kernel > > > > > >> >>development making decisions without even contacting the major > > > > > >> >>contributor is wrong, twice so if the maintainer is a relatively > > > > > >> >>minor > > > > > >> >>contributor to start with. > > > > > >> >> > > > > > >> >>Just because it recent came up elsewhere I'd like to recite the > > > > > >> >>definition from Trond here again: > > > > > >> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > >> >> http://lists.linux-foundation.org/pipermail/ksummit-2012-discuss/2012-June/66.html > > Yup, and my take on the role of a Maintainer is here: > > http://oss.sgi.com/archives/xfs/2013-08/msg00633.html > > > > > > > P: Silicon Graphics Inc > > > > > > +M: Dave Chinner > > I flattered by this, but there is a reason I've resisted taking this > position for a long time. Mainly for the reasons already mentioned: > > > > > Indeed. And does he even want the job? I heard Linus say in a recent > > > > interview that being a maintainer is a $#!+ job. > > > > > > I've found that it can be a little bit stressful sometimes and it tends to > > > crowd out feature work, so I guess I agree with him. It turns out to be > > > an > > > excellent weight loss plan. > > which are all true, but I'm already pulling most patches off the > list, applying them to my own trees, testing them and reviewing > them. Hence juggling them into a stable, non-rebasing git tree > branch on a server somewhere isn't a huge amount of extra work... > > > > > Is it really best for the > > > > most active developers to be burdened with that extra work? > > > > > > > > (hmm.. maybe I should add Dave to the Cc here .. but no-one else did so > > > > best > > > > leave him alone to code in peace). > > > > > > Dave, what do you want to do here? Which email? What sort of > > > arrangement? I > > > gather that you probably do want the job, and I know you'll be fantastic. > > > Do > > > you want to do it all yourself? Maybe split it up? > > > > I should have also suggested that we can add you to this file and just keep > > our > > existing arrangements. That seems appropriate to me, befitting of your > > achievements, the work you've been doing, and I'm willing to keep on as I > > am. > > OK, I've read the thread and had a think about it. My thoughts are > as follows > > I'm not interested in being a co-maintainer in name only or only as > a backup to only be used when Ben goes on holidays. > > Co-maintainer means SGI is giving me all the access and admin rights > needed to commit and maintain git trees on oss.sgi.com (including > creating new trees) at any time, at any point in a release cycle, > etc. i.e. I can do anything that Ben can currently do on > oss.sgi.com from XFS POV... > > Co-maintainer is not a kernel-tree only deal. It's for everything > XFS related: kernel code, xfsprogs, xfstests and xfsdump. > > Co-maintainer does not mean "Dave does everything". Yes, I can do a > lot of the heavy lifting, but I'm very happy for Ben to continue > committing patches he reviews and handling userspace releases and > pushing stuff to Linus and so on. There's some logistics we need to > work out here so we aren't going to step on each other's toes, but > there's no unsolvable issues here. > > Co-maintainer is not a role I will perform with a Red Hat on. I will > review and sign off on anything in my co-maintainer role as > "da...@fromorbit.com". Hence I hope to be able to maintain
Re: [PATCH] update xfs maintainers
On Sat, Nov 09, 2013 at 09:13:03PM -0600, Stan Hoeppner wrote: > Dave is on the other side of the international date line from those of > us in the States. If my time zone math is correct, this thread began > and continued *after* the end of his 'normal' Friday workday, during > Dave's weekend. You think it might be possible he decided to unplug and > actually live for a couple of days? If by "live" you mean "taking my race car to play amongst a gaggle of supercars on an airstrip" then yes, living is exactly what I was doing on the weekend :) Cheers, Dave. -- Dave Chinner da...@fromorbit.com -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Re: [PATCH] update xfs maintainers
On Sat, Nov 09, 2013 at 06:30:49PM -0600, Ben Myers wrote: > On Sat, Nov 09, 2013 at 05:51:30PM -0600, Ben Myers wrote: > > On Sat, Nov 09, 2013 at 10:44:24AM +1100, NeilBrown wrote: > > > On Sat, 9 Nov 2013 06:59:00 +0800 Zhi Yong Wu > > > wrote: > > > > On Sat, Nov 9, 2013 at 6:03 AM, Ben Myers wrote: > > > > > On Fri, Nov 08, 2013 at 03:50:21PM -0500, Ric Wheeler wrote: > > > > >> On 11/08/2013 03:46 PM, Ben Myers wrote: > > > > >> >Hey Christoph, > > > > >> > > > > > >> >On Fri, Nov 08, 2013 at 11:34:24AM -0800, Christoph Hellwig wrote: > > > > >> >>On Fri, Nov 08, 2013 at 12:03:37PM -0600, Ben Myers wrote: > > > > >> >>>Mark is replacing Alex as my backup because Alex is really busy at > > > > >> >>>Linaro and asked to be taken off awhile ago. The holiday season > > > > >> >>>is > > > > >> >>>coming up and I fully intend to go off my meds, turn in to Fonzy > > > > >> >>>the > > > > >> >>>bear, and eat my hat. I need someone to watch the shop while I'm > > > > >> >>>off > > > > >> >>>exploring on Mars. I trust Mark to do that because he is totally > > > > >> >>>awesome. > > > > >> >> > > > > >> >>Doing this as an unilateral decisions is not something that will > > > > >> >>win you > > > > >> >>a fan base. > > > > >> >It's posted for review. > > > > >> > > > > > >> >>While we never had anything reassembling a democracy in Linux > > > > >> >>Kernel > > > > >> >>development making decisions without even contacting the major > > > > >> >>contributor is wrong, twice so if the maintainer is a relatively > > > > >> >>minor > > > > >> >>contributor to start with. > > > > >> >> > > > > >> >>Just because it recent came up elsewhere I'd like to recite the > > > > >> >>definition from Trond here again: > > > > >> >> > > > > >> >> > > > > >> >> http://lists.linux-foundation.org/pipermail/ksummit-2012-discuss/2012-June/66.html Yup, and my take on the role of a Maintainer is here: http://oss.sgi.com/archives/xfs/2013-08/msg00633.html > > > > > P: Silicon Graphics Inc > > > > > +M: Dave Chinner I flattered by this, but there is a reason I've resisted taking this position for a long time. Mainly for the reasons already mentioned: > > > Indeed. And does he even want the job? I heard Linus say in a recent > > > interview that being a maintainer is a $#!+ job. > > > > I've found that it can be a little bit stressful sometimes and it tends to > > crowd out feature work, so I guess I agree with him. It turns out to be an > > excellent weight loss plan. which are all true, but I'm already pulling most patches off the list, applying them to my own trees, testing them and reviewing them. Hence juggling them into a stable, non-rebasing git tree branch on a server somewhere isn't a huge amount of extra work... > > > Is it really best for the > > > most active developers to be burdened with that extra work? > > > > > > (hmm.. maybe I should add Dave to the Cc here .. but no-one else did so > > > best > > > leave him alone to code in peace). > > > > Dave, what do you want to do here? Which email? What sort of arrangement? > > I > > gather that you probably do want the job, and I know you'll be fantastic. > > Do > > you want to do it all yourself? Maybe split it up? > > I should have also suggested that we can add you to this file and just keep > our > existing arrangements. That seems appropriate to me, befitting of your > achievements, the work you've been doing, and I'm willing to keep on as I am. OK, I've read the thread and had a think about it. My thoughts are as follows I'm not interested in being a co-maintainer in name only or only as a backup to only be used when Ben goes on holidays. Co-maintainer means SGI is giving me all the access and admin rights needed to commit and maintain git trees on oss.sgi.com (including creating new trees) at any time, at any point in a release cycle, etc. i.e. I can do anything that Ben can currently do on oss.sgi.com from XFS POV... Co-maintainer is not a kernel-tree only deal. It's for everything XFS related: kernel code, xfsprogs, xfstests and xfsdump. Co-maintainer does not mean "Dave does everything". Yes, I can do a lot of the heavy lifting, but I'm very happy for Ben to continue committing patches he reviews and handling userspace releases and pushing stuff to Linus and so on. There's some logistics we need to work out here so we aren't going to step on each other's toes, but there's no unsolvable issues here. Co-maintainer is not a role I will perform with a Red Hat on. I will review and sign off on anything in my co-maintainer role as "da...@fromorbit.com". Hence I hope to be able to maintain a clear distinction between the duties I perform on behalf of the community and code that I write on Red Hat's behalf. Lastly, being a maintainer doesn't solve the problem of review latency of the code I write. I'm hoping that everyone understands that maintainers are still dependent on the receiving help from the community
Re: [PATCH] update xfs maintainers
On Sat, Nov 09, 2013 at 06:30:49PM -0600, Ben Myers wrote: On Sat, Nov 09, 2013 at 05:51:30PM -0600, Ben Myers wrote: On Sat, Nov 09, 2013 at 10:44:24AM +1100, NeilBrown wrote: On Sat, 9 Nov 2013 06:59:00 +0800 Zhi Yong Wu zwu.ker...@gmail.com wrote: On Sat, Nov 9, 2013 at 6:03 AM, Ben Myers b...@sgi.com wrote: On Fri, Nov 08, 2013 at 03:50:21PM -0500, Ric Wheeler wrote: On 11/08/2013 03:46 PM, Ben Myers wrote: Hey Christoph, On Fri, Nov 08, 2013 at 11:34:24AM -0800, Christoph Hellwig wrote: On Fri, Nov 08, 2013 at 12:03:37PM -0600, Ben Myers wrote: Mark is replacing Alex as my backup because Alex is really busy at Linaro and asked to be taken off awhile ago. The holiday season is coming up and I fully intend to go off my meds, turn in to Fonzy the bear, and eat my hat. I need someone to watch the shop while I'm off exploring on Mars. I trust Mark to do that because he is totally awesome. Doing this as an unilateral decisions is not something that will win you a fan base. It's posted for review. While we never had anything reassembling a democracy in Linux Kernel development making decisions without even contacting the major contributor is wrong, twice so if the maintainer is a relatively minor contributor to start with. Just because it recent came up elsewhere I'd like to recite the definition from Trond here again: http://lists.linux-foundation.org/pipermail/ksummit-2012-discuss/2012-June/66.html Yup, and my take on the role of a Maintainer is here: http://oss.sgi.com/archives/xfs/2013-08/msg00633.html P: Silicon Graphics Inc +M: Dave Chinner dchin...@fromorbit.com I flattered by this, but there is a reason I've resisted taking this position for a long time. Mainly for the reasons already mentioned: Indeed. And does he even want the job? I heard Linus say in a recent interview that being a maintainer is a $#!+ job. I've found that it can be a little bit stressful sometimes and it tends to crowd out feature work, so I guess I agree with him. It turns out to be an excellent weight loss plan. which are all true, but I'm already pulling most patches off the list, applying them to my own trees, testing them and reviewing them. Hence juggling them into a stable, non-rebasing git tree branch on a server somewhere isn't a huge amount of extra work... Is it really best for the most active developers to be burdened with that extra work? (hmm.. maybe I should add Dave to the Cc here .. but no-one else did so best leave him alone to code in peace). Dave, what do you want to do here? Which email? What sort of arrangement? I gather that you probably do want the job, and I know you'll be fantastic. Do you want to do it all yourself? Maybe split it up? I should have also suggested that we can add you to this file and just keep our existing arrangements. That seems appropriate to me, befitting of your achievements, the work you've been doing, and I'm willing to keep on as I am. OK, I've read the thread and had a think about it. My thoughts are as follows I'm not interested in being a co-maintainer in name only or only as a backup to only be used when Ben goes on holidays. Co-maintainer means SGI is giving me all the access and admin rights needed to commit and maintain git trees on oss.sgi.com (including creating new trees) at any time, at any point in a release cycle, etc. i.e. I can do anything that Ben can currently do on oss.sgi.com from XFS POV... Co-maintainer is not a kernel-tree only deal. It's for everything XFS related: kernel code, xfsprogs, xfstests and xfsdump. Co-maintainer does not mean Dave does everything. Yes, I can do a lot of the heavy lifting, but I'm very happy for Ben to continue committing patches he reviews and handling userspace releases and pushing stuff to Linus and so on. There's some logistics we need to work out here so we aren't going to step on each other's toes, but there's no unsolvable issues here. Co-maintainer is not a role I will perform with a Red Hat on. I will review and sign off on anything in my co-maintainer role as da...@fromorbit.com. Hence I hope to be able to maintain a clear distinction between the duties I perform on behalf of the community and code that I write on Red Hat's behalf. Lastly, being a maintainer doesn't solve the problem of review latency of the code I write. I'm hoping that everyone understands that maintainers are still dependent on the receiving help from the community they serve to get their own work done. Ben, let's talk more about the logistics of this offline first before making anything official Cheers, Dave. -- Dave Chinner da...@fromorbit.com -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line unsubscribe linux-kernel in the body of a
Re: [PATCH] update xfs maintainers
On Sat, Nov 09, 2013 at 09:13:03PM -0600, Stan Hoeppner wrote: Dave is on the other side of the international date line from those of us in the States. If my time zone math is correct, this thread began and continued *after* the end of his 'normal' Friday workday, during Dave's weekend. You think it might be possible he decided to unplug and actually live for a couple of days? If by live you mean taking my race car to play amongst a gaggle of supercars on an airstrip then yes, living is exactly what I was doing on the weekend :) Cheers, Dave. -- Dave Chinner da...@fromorbit.com -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line unsubscribe linux-kernel in the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Re: [PATCH] update xfs maintainers
Hey Dave, On Mon, Nov 11, 2013 at 10:12:41AM +1100, Dave Chinner wrote: On Sat, Nov 09, 2013 at 06:30:49PM -0600, Ben Myers wrote: On Sat, Nov 09, 2013 at 05:51:30PM -0600, Ben Myers wrote: On Sat, Nov 09, 2013 at 10:44:24AM +1100, NeilBrown wrote: On Sat, 9 Nov 2013 06:59:00 +0800 Zhi Yong Wu zwu.ker...@gmail.com wrote: On Sat, Nov 9, 2013 at 6:03 AM, Ben Myers b...@sgi.com wrote: On Fri, Nov 08, 2013 at 03:50:21PM -0500, Ric Wheeler wrote: On 11/08/2013 03:46 PM, Ben Myers wrote: Hey Christoph, On Fri, Nov 08, 2013 at 11:34:24AM -0800, Christoph Hellwig wrote: On Fri, Nov 08, 2013 at 12:03:37PM -0600, Ben Myers wrote: Mark is replacing Alex as my backup because Alex is really busy at Linaro and asked to be taken off awhile ago. The holiday season is coming up and I fully intend to go off my meds, turn in to Fonzy the bear, and eat my hat. I need someone to watch the shop while I'm off exploring on Mars. I trust Mark to do that because he is totally awesome. Doing this as an unilateral decisions is not something that will win you a fan base. It's posted for review. While we never had anything reassembling a democracy in Linux Kernel development making decisions without even contacting the major contributor is wrong, twice so if the maintainer is a relatively minor contributor to start with. Just because it recent came up elsewhere I'd like to recite the definition from Trond here again: http://lists.linux-foundation.org/pipermail/ksummit-2012-discuss/2012-June/66.html Yup, and my take on the role of a Maintainer is here: http://oss.sgi.com/archives/xfs/2013-08/msg00633.html P: Silicon Graphics Inc +M: Dave Chinner dchin...@fromorbit.com I flattered by this, but there is a reason I've resisted taking this position for a long time. Mainly for the reasons already mentioned: Indeed. And does he even want the job? I heard Linus say in a recent interview that being a maintainer is a $#!+ job. I've found that it can be a little bit stressful sometimes and it tends to crowd out feature work, so I guess I agree with him. It turns out to be an excellent weight loss plan. which are all true, but I'm already pulling most patches off the list, applying them to my own trees, testing them and reviewing them. Hence juggling them into a stable, non-rebasing git tree branch on a server somewhere isn't a huge amount of extra work... Is it really best for the most active developers to be burdened with that extra work? (hmm.. maybe I should add Dave to the Cc here .. but no-one else did so best leave him alone to code in peace). Dave, what do you want to do here? Which email? What sort of arrangement? I gather that you probably do want the job, and I know you'll be fantastic. Do you want to do it all yourself? Maybe split it up? I should have also suggested that we can add you to this file and just keep our existing arrangements. That seems appropriate to me, befitting of your achievements, the work you've been doing, and I'm willing to keep on as I am. OK, I've read the thread and had a think about it. My thoughts are as follows I'm not interested in being a co-maintainer in name only or only as a backup to only be used when Ben goes on holidays. Co-maintainer means SGI is giving me all the access and admin rights needed to commit and maintain git trees on oss.sgi.com (including creating new trees) at any time, at any point in a release cycle, etc. i.e. I can do anything that Ben can currently do on oss.sgi.com from XFS POV... Co-maintainer is not a kernel-tree only deal. It's for everything XFS related: kernel code, xfsprogs, xfstests and xfsdump. Co-maintainer does not mean Dave does everything. Yes, I can do a lot of the heavy lifting, but I'm very happy for Ben to continue committing patches he reviews and handling userspace releases and pushing stuff to Linus and so on. There's some logistics we need to work out here so we aren't going to step on each other's toes, but there's no unsolvable issues here. Co-maintainer is not a role I will perform with a Red Hat on. I will review and sign off on anything in my co-maintainer role as da...@fromorbit.com. Hence I hope to be able to maintain a clear distinction between the duties I perform on behalf of the community and code that I write on Red Hat's behalf. Lastly, being a maintainer doesn't solve the problem of review latency of the code I write. I'm hoping that everyone understands that maintainers are still dependent on the receiving help from the community they serve to get their own work done. Ben, let's talk more about the
Re: [PATCH] update xfs maintainers
Dave is on the other side of the international date line from those of us in the States. If my time zone math is correct, this thread began and continued *after* the end of his 'normal' Friday workday, during Dave's weekend. You think it might be possible he decided to unplug and actually live for a couple of days? Put this on hold until Monday. -- Stan On 11/9/2013 6:30 PM, Ben Myers wrote: > Dave, > > On Sat, Nov 09, 2013 at 05:51:30PM -0600, Ben Myers wrote: >> Hey Neil, >> >> On Sat, Nov 09, 2013 at 10:44:24AM +1100, NeilBrown wrote: >>> On Sat, 9 Nov 2013 06:59:00 +0800 Zhi Yong Wu wrote: >>> On Sat, Nov 9, 2013 at 6:03 AM, Ben Myers wrote: > Hey Ric, > > On Fri, Nov 08, 2013 at 03:50:21PM -0500, Ric Wheeler wrote: >> On 11/08/2013 03:46 PM, Ben Myers wrote: >>> Hey Christoph, >>> >>> On Fri, Nov 08, 2013 at 11:34:24AM -0800, Christoph Hellwig wrote: On Fri, Nov 08, 2013 at 12:03:37PM -0600, Ben Myers wrote: > Mark is replacing Alex as my backup because Alex is really busy at > Linaro and asked to be taken off awhile ago. The holiday season is > coming up and I fully intend to go off my meds, turn in to Fonzy the > bear, and eat my hat. I need someone to watch the shop while I'm off > exploring on Mars. I trust Mark to do that because he is totally > awesome. Doing this as an unilateral decisions is not something that will win you a fan base. >>> It's posted for review. >>> While we never had anything reassembling a democracy in Linux Kernel development making decisions without even contacting the major contributor is wrong, twice so if the maintainer is a relatively minor contributor to start with. Just because it recent came up elsewhere I'd like to recite the definition from Trond here again: http://lists.linux-foundation.org/pipermail/ksummit-2012-discuss/2012-June/66.html By many of the creative roles enlisted there it's clear that Dave should be the maintainer. He's been the main contributor and chief architect for XFS for many year, while the maintainers came and went at the mercy of SGI. This is not meant to bad mouth either of you as I think you're doing a reasonably good job compared to other maintainers, but at the same time the direction is set by other people that have a much longer involvement with the project, and having them officially in control would help us forward a lot. It would also avoid having to spend considerable resources to train every new generation of SGI maintainer. Coming to and end I would like to maintain Dave Chinner as the primary XFS maintainer for all the work he has done as biggest contributor and architect of XFS since longer than I can remember, and I would love to retain Ben Myers as a co-maintainer for all the good work he has done maintaining and reviewing patches since November 2011. >>> I think we're doing a decent job too. So thanks for that much at >>> least. ;) I would also like to use this post as a public venue to condemn the unilateral smokey backroom decisions about XFS maintainership that SGI is trying to enforce on the community. >>> That really didn't happen Christoph. It's not in my tree or in a pull >>> request. >>> >>> Linus, let me know what you want to do. I do think we're doing a fair >>> job over >>> here, and (geez) I'm just trying to add Mark as my backup since Alex is >>> too >>> busy. I know the RH people want more control, and that's >>> understandable, but >>> they really don't need to replace me to get their code in. Ouch. >>> >>> Thanks, >>> Ben >> >> Christoph is not a Red Hat person. >> >> Jeff is from Oracle. >> >> This is not a Red Hat vs SGI thing, > > Sorry if my read on that was wrong. > >> Dave simply has earned the right >> to take on the formal leadership role of maintainer. > > Then we're gonna need some Reviewed-bys. ;) > > From: Ben Myers > > xfs: update maintainers > > Add Dave as maintainer of XFS. > > Signed-off-by: Ben Myers > --- > MAINTAINERS |2 +- > 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-) > > Index: b/MAINTAINERS > === > --- a/MAINTAINERS 2013-11-08 15:20:18.935186245 -0600 > +++ b/MAINTAINERS 2013-11-08 15:22:50.685245977 -0600 > @@ -9387,8 +9387,8 @@ F:drivers/xen/*swiotlb* > > XFS FILESYSTEM > P: Silicon Graphics Inc > +M: Dave Chinner Use his personal
Re: [PATCH] update xfs maintainers
Dave, On Sat, Nov 09, 2013 at 05:51:30PM -0600, Ben Myers wrote: > Hey Neil, > > On Sat, Nov 09, 2013 at 10:44:24AM +1100, NeilBrown wrote: > > On Sat, 9 Nov 2013 06:59:00 +0800 Zhi Yong Wu wrote: > > > > > On Sat, Nov 9, 2013 at 6:03 AM, Ben Myers wrote: > > > > Hey Ric, > > > > > > > > On Fri, Nov 08, 2013 at 03:50:21PM -0500, Ric Wheeler wrote: > > > >> On 11/08/2013 03:46 PM, Ben Myers wrote: > > > >> >Hey Christoph, > > > >> > > > > >> >On Fri, Nov 08, 2013 at 11:34:24AM -0800, Christoph Hellwig wrote: > > > >> >>On Fri, Nov 08, 2013 at 12:03:37PM -0600, Ben Myers wrote: > > > >> >>>Mark is replacing Alex as my backup because Alex is really busy at > > > >> >>>Linaro and asked to be taken off awhile ago. The holiday season is > > > >> >>>coming up and I fully intend to go off my meds, turn in to Fonzy the > > > >> >>>bear, and eat my hat. I need someone to watch the shop while I'm > > > >> >>>off > > > >> >>>exploring on Mars. I trust Mark to do that because he is totally > > > >> >>>awesome. > > > >> >> > > > >> >>Doing this as an unilateral decisions is not something that will win > > > >> >>you > > > >> >>a fan base. > > > >> >It's posted for review. > > > >> > > > > >> >>While we never had anything reassembling a democracy in Linux Kernel > > > >> >>development making decisions without even contacting the major > > > >> >>contributor is wrong, twice so if the maintainer is a relatively > > > >> >>minor > > > >> >>contributor to start with. > > > >> >> > > > >> >>Just because it recent came up elsewhere I'd like to recite the > > > >> >>definition from Trond here again: > > > >> >> > > > >> >> > > > >> >> http://lists.linux-foundation.org/pipermail/ksummit-2012-discuss/2012-June/66.html > > > >> >> > > > >> >>By many of the creative roles enlisted there it's clear that Dave > > > >> >>should > > > >> >>be the maintainer. He's been the main contributor and chief > > > >> >>architect > > > >> >>for XFS for many year, while the maintainers came and went at the > > > >> >>mercy > > > >> >>of SGI. This is not meant to bad mouth either of you as I think > > > >> >>you're > > > >> >>doing a reasonably good job compared to other maintainers, but at the > > > >> >>same time the direction is set by other people that have a much > > > >> >>longer > > > >> >>involvement with the project, and having them officially in control > > > >> >>would help us forward a lot. It would also avoid having to spend > > > >> >>considerable resources to train every new generation of SGI > > > >> >>maintainer. > > > >> >> > > > >> >>Coming to and end I would like to maintain Dave Chinner as the > > > >> >>primary > > > >> >>XFS maintainer for all the work he has done as biggest contributor > > > >> >>and > > > >> >>architect of XFS since longer than I can remember, and I would love > > > >> >>to > > > >> >>retain Ben Myers as a co-maintainer for all the good work he has done > > > >> >>maintaining and reviewing patches since November 2011. > > > >> >I think we're doing a decent job too. So thanks for that much at > > > >> >least. ;) > > > >> >>I would also like to use this post as a public venue to condemn the > > > >> >>unilateral smokey backroom decisions about XFS maintainership that > > > >> >>SGI is > > > >> >>trying to enforce on the community. > > > >> >That really didn't happen Christoph. It's not in my tree or in a > > > >> >pull request. > > > >> > > > > >> >Linus, let me know what you want to do. I do think we're doing a > > > >> >fair job over > > > >> >here, and (geez) I'm just trying to add Mark as my backup since Alex > > > >> >is too > > > >> >busy. I know the RH people want more control, and that's > > > >> >understandable, but > > > >> >they really don't need to replace me to get their code in. Ouch. > > > >> > > > > >> >Thanks, > > > >> > Ben > > > >> > > > >> Christoph is not a Red Hat person. > > > >> > > > >> Jeff is from Oracle. > > > >> > > > >> This is not a Red Hat vs SGI thing, > > > > > > > > Sorry if my read on that was wrong. > > > > > > > >> Dave simply has earned the right > > > >> to take on the formal leadership role of maintainer. > > > > > > > > Then we're gonna need some Reviewed-bys. ;) > > > > > > > > From: Ben Myers > > > > > > > > xfs: update maintainers > > > > > > > > Add Dave as maintainer of XFS. > > > > > > > > Signed-off-by: Ben Myers > > > > --- > > > > MAINTAINERS |2 +- > > > > 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-) > > > > > > > > Index: b/MAINTAINERS > > > > === > > > > --- a/MAINTAINERS 2013-11-08 15:20:18.935186245 -0600 > > > > +++ b/MAINTAINERS 2013-11-08 15:22:50.685245977 -0600 > > > > @@ -9387,8 +9387,8 @@ F:drivers/xen/*swiotlb* > > > > > > > > XFS FILESYSTEM > > > > P: Silicon Graphics Inc > > > > +M: Dave Chinner > > > Use his personal private mail account? I guess that you should ask for > > > his opinion at
Re: [PATCH] update xfs maintainers
Hey Neil, On Sat, Nov 09, 2013 at 10:44:24AM +1100, NeilBrown wrote: > On Sat, 9 Nov 2013 06:59:00 +0800 Zhi Yong Wu wrote: > > > On Sat, Nov 9, 2013 at 6:03 AM, Ben Myers wrote: > > > Hey Ric, > > > > > > On Fri, Nov 08, 2013 at 03:50:21PM -0500, Ric Wheeler wrote: > > >> On 11/08/2013 03:46 PM, Ben Myers wrote: > > >> >Hey Christoph, > > >> > > > >> >On Fri, Nov 08, 2013 at 11:34:24AM -0800, Christoph Hellwig wrote: > > >> >>On Fri, Nov 08, 2013 at 12:03:37PM -0600, Ben Myers wrote: > > >> >>>Mark is replacing Alex as my backup because Alex is really busy at > > >> >>>Linaro and asked to be taken off awhile ago. The holiday season is > > >> >>>coming up and I fully intend to go off my meds, turn in to Fonzy the > > >> >>>bear, and eat my hat. I need someone to watch the shop while I'm off > > >> >>>exploring on Mars. I trust Mark to do that because he is totally > > >> >>>awesome. > > >> >> > > >> >>Doing this as an unilateral decisions is not something that will win > > >> >>you > > >> >>a fan base. > > >> >It's posted for review. > > >> > > > >> >>While we never had anything reassembling a democracy in Linux Kernel > > >> >>development making decisions without even contacting the major > > >> >>contributor is wrong, twice so if the maintainer is a relatively minor > > >> >>contributor to start with. > > >> >> > > >> >>Just because it recent came up elsewhere I'd like to recite the > > >> >>definition from Trond here again: > > >> >> > > >> >> > > >> >> http://lists.linux-foundation.org/pipermail/ksummit-2012-discuss/2012-June/66.html > > >> >> > > >> >>By many of the creative roles enlisted there it's clear that Dave > > >> >>should > > >> >>be the maintainer. He's been the main contributor and chief architect > > >> >>for XFS for many year, while the maintainers came and went at the mercy > > >> >>of SGI. This is not meant to bad mouth either of you as I think you're > > >> >>doing a reasonably good job compared to other maintainers, but at the > > >> >>same time the direction is set by other people that have a much longer > > >> >>involvement with the project, and having them officially in control > > >> >>would help us forward a lot. It would also avoid having to spend > > >> >>considerable resources to train every new generation of SGI maintainer. > > >> >> > > >> >>Coming to and end I would like to maintain Dave Chinner as the primary > > >> >>XFS maintainer for all the work he has done as biggest contributor and > > >> >>architect of XFS since longer than I can remember, and I would love to > > >> >>retain Ben Myers as a co-maintainer for all the good work he has done > > >> >>maintaining and reviewing patches since November 2011. > > >> >I think we're doing a decent job too. So thanks for that much at > > >> >least. ;) > > >> >>I would also like to use this post as a public venue to condemn the > > >> >>unilateral smokey backroom decisions about XFS maintainership that SGI > > >> >>is > > >> >>trying to enforce on the community. > > >> >That really didn't happen Christoph. It's not in my tree or in a pull > > >> >request. > > >> > > > >> >Linus, let me know what you want to do. I do think we're doing a fair > > >> >job over > > >> >here, and (geez) I'm just trying to add Mark as my backup since Alex is > > >> >too > > >> >busy. I know the RH people want more control, and that's > > >> >understandable, but > > >> >they really don't need to replace me to get their code in. Ouch. > > >> > > > >> >Thanks, > > >> > Ben > > >> > > >> Christoph is not a Red Hat person. > > >> > > >> Jeff is from Oracle. > > >> > > >> This is not a Red Hat vs SGI thing, > > > > > > Sorry if my read on that was wrong. > > > > > >> Dave simply has earned the right > > >> to take on the formal leadership role of maintainer. > > > > > > Then we're gonna need some Reviewed-bys. ;) > > > > > > From: Ben Myers > > > > > > xfs: update maintainers > > > > > > Add Dave as maintainer of XFS. > > > > > > Signed-off-by: Ben Myers > > > --- > > > MAINTAINERS |2 +- > > > 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-) > > > > > > Index: b/MAINTAINERS > > > === > > > --- a/MAINTAINERS 2013-11-08 15:20:18.935186245 -0600 > > > +++ b/MAINTAINERS 2013-11-08 15:22:50.685245977 -0600 > > > @@ -9387,8 +9387,8 @@ F:drivers/xen/*swiotlb* > > > > > > XFS FILESYSTEM > > > P: Silicon Graphics Inc > > > +M: Dave Chinner > > Use his personal private mail account? I guess that you should ask for > > his opinion at first, or it is more appropriate that he submit this > > patch by himself. If y'all don't mind, I'd like to have authored this one. ;) > Indeed. And does he even want the job? I heard Linus say in a recent > interview that being a maintainer is a $#!+ job. I've found that it can be a little bit stressful sometimes and it tends to crowd out feature work, so I guess I agree with him. It turns out
Re: [PATCH] update xfs maintainers
On Fri, Nov 08, 2013 at 06:32:33PM -0500, Ric Wheeler wrote: > On 11/08/2013 05:17 PM, Ben Myers wrote: > >Hey Ric, > > > >On Fri, Nov 08, 2013 at 05:07:45PM -0500, Ric Wheeler wrote: > >>On 11/08/2013 05:03 PM, Ben Myers wrote: > >>>Hey Ric, > >>> > >>>On Fri, Nov 08, 2013 at 03:50:21PM -0500, Ric Wheeler wrote: > On 11/08/2013 03:46 PM, Ben Myers wrote: > >Hey Christoph, > > > >On Fri, Nov 08, 2013 at 11:34:24AM -0800, Christoph Hellwig wrote: > >>On Fri, Nov 08, 2013 at 12:03:37PM -0600, Ben Myers wrote: > >>>Mark is replacing Alex as my backup because Alex is really busy at > >>>Linaro and asked to be taken off awhile ago. The holiday season is > >>>coming up and I fully intend to go off my meds, turn in to Fonzy the > >>>bear, and eat my hat. I need someone to watch the shop while I'm off > >>>exploring on Mars. I trust Mark to do that because he is totally > >>>awesome. > >>Doing this as an unilateral decisions is not something that will win you > >>a fan base. > >It's posted for review. > > > >>While we never had anything reassembling a democracy in Linux Kernel > >>development making decisions without even contacting the major > >>contributor is wrong, twice so if the maintainer is a relatively minor > >>contributor to start with. > >> > >>Just because it recent came up elsewhere I'd like to recite the > >>definition from Trond here again: > >> > >> > >> http://lists.linux-foundation.org/pipermail/ksummit-2012-discuss/2012-June/66.html > >> > >>By many of the creative roles enlisted there it's clear that Dave should > >>be the maintainer. He's been the main contributor and chief architect > >>for XFS for many year, while the maintainers came and went at the mercy > >>of SGI. This is not meant to bad mouth either of you as I think you're > >>doing a reasonably good job compared to other maintainers, but at the > >>same time the direction is set by other people that have a much longer > >>involvement with the project, and having them officially in control > >>would help us forward a lot. It would also avoid having to spend > >>considerable resources to train every new generation of SGI maintainer. > >> > >>Coming to and end I would like to maintain Dave Chinner as the primary > >>XFS maintainer for all the work he has done as biggest contributor and > >>architect of XFS since longer than I can remember, and I would love to > >>retain Ben Myers as a co-maintainer for all the good work he has done > >>maintaining and reviewing patches since November 2011. > >I think we're doing a decent job too. So thanks for that much at least. > > ;) > >>I would also like to use this post as a public venue to condemn the > >>unilateral smokey backroom decisions about XFS maintainership that SGI > >>is > >>trying to enforce on the community. > >That really didn't happen Christoph. It's not in my tree or in a pull > >request. > > > >Linus, let me know what you want to do. I do think we're doing a fair > >job over > >here, and (geez) I'm just trying to add Mark as my backup since Alex is > >too > >busy. I know the RH people want more control, and that's > >understandable, but > >they really don't need to replace me to get their code in. Ouch. > > > >Thanks, > > Ben > Christoph is not a Red Hat person. > > Jeff is from Oracle. > > This is not a Red Hat vs SGI thing, > >>>Sorry if my read on that was wrong. > >>I do appreciate the work and effort you and the SGI team put in but > >>think that this will be a good way to keep the community happier and > >>even more productive going forward. > >> > Dave simply has earned the right > to take on the formal leadership role of maintainer. > >>>Then we're gonna need some Reviewed-bys. ;) > >>Those should come from the developers, thanks! > >I actually do need your Reviewed-by. We'll try and get this one in 3.13. > >;) > > > >Thanks, > > Ben > > Happy to do that - I do think that Dave mostly posts from his > redhat.com account, but he can comment once he gets back online. > > Reviewed-by: Ric Wheeler Thanks Ric. ;) -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Re: [PATCH] update xfs maintainers
On Fri, Nov 08, 2013 at 06:32:33PM -0500, Ric Wheeler wrote: On 11/08/2013 05:17 PM, Ben Myers wrote: Hey Ric, On Fri, Nov 08, 2013 at 05:07:45PM -0500, Ric Wheeler wrote: On 11/08/2013 05:03 PM, Ben Myers wrote: Hey Ric, On Fri, Nov 08, 2013 at 03:50:21PM -0500, Ric Wheeler wrote: On 11/08/2013 03:46 PM, Ben Myers wrote: Hey Christoph, On Fri, Nov 08, 2013 at 11:34:24AM -0800, Christoph Hellwig wrote: On Fri, Nov 08, 2013 at 12:03:37PM -0600, Ben Myers wrote: Mark is replacing Alex as my backup because Alex is really busy at Linaro and asked to be taken off awhile ago. The holiday season is coming up and I fully intend to go off my meds, turn in to Fonzy the bear, and eat my hat. I need someone to watch the shop while I'm off exploring on Mars. I trust Mark to do that because he is totally awesome. Doing this as an unilateral decisions is not something that will win you a fan base. It's posted for review. While we never had anything reassembling a democracy in Linux Kernel development making decisions without even contacting the major contributor is wrong, twice so if the maintainer is a relatively minor contributor to start with. Just because it recent came up elsewhere I'd like to recite the definition from Trond here again: http://lists.linux-foundation.org/pipermail/ksummit-2012-discuss/2012-June/66.html By many of the creative roles enlisted there it's clear that Dave should be the maintainer. He's been the main contributor and chief architect for XFS for many year, while the maintainers came and went at the mercy of SGI. This is not meant to bad mouth either of you as I think you're doing a reasonably good job compared to other maintainers, but at the same time the direction is set by other people that have a much longer involvement with the project, and having them officially in control would help us forward a lot. It would also avoid having to spend considerable resources to train every new generation of SGI maintainer. Coming to and end I would like to maintain Dave Chinner as the primary XFS maintainer for all the work he has done as biggest contributor and architect of XFS since longer than I can remember, and I would love to retain Ben Myers as a co-maintainer for all the good work he has done maintaining and reviewing patches since November 2011. I think we're doing a decent job too. So thanks for that much at least. ;) I would also like to use this post as a public venue to condemn the unilateral smokey backroom decisions about XFS maintainership that SGI is trying to enforce on the community. That really didn't happen Christoph. It's not in my tree or in a pull request. Linus, let me know what you want to do. I do think we're doing a fair job over here, and (geez) I'm just trying to add Mark as my backup since Alex is too busy. I know the RH people want more control, and that's understandable, but they really don't need to replace me to get their code in. Ouch. Thanks, Ben Christoph is not a Red Hat person. Jeff is from Oracle. This is not a Red Hat vs SGI thing, Sorry if my read on that was wrong. I do appreciate the work and effort you and the SGI team put in but think that this will be a good way to keep the community happier and even more productive going forward. Dave simply has earned the right to take on the formal leadership role of maintainer. Then we're gonna need some Reviewed-bys. ;) Those should come from the developers, thanks! I actually do need your Reviewed-by. We'll try and get this one in 3.13. ;) Thanks, Ben Happy to do that - I do think that Dave mostly posts from his redhat.com account, but he can comment once he gets back online. Reviewed-by: Ric Wheeler rwhee...@redhat.com Thanks Ric. ;) -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line unsubscribe linux-kernel in the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Re: [PATCH] update xfs maintainers
Hey Neil, On Sat, Nov 09, 2013 at 10:44:24AM +1100, NeilBrown wrote: On Sat, 9 Nov 2013 06:59:00 +0800 Zhi Yong Wu zwu.ker...@gmail.com wrote: On Sat, Nov 9, 2013 at 6:03 AM, Ben Myers b...@sgi.com wrote: Hey Ric, On Fri, Nov 08, 2013 at 03:50:21PM -0500, Ric Wheeler wrote: On 11/08/2013 03:46 PM, Ben Myers wrote: Hey Christoph, On Fri, Nov 08, 2013 at 11:34:24AM -0800, Christoph Hellwig wrote: On Fri, Nov 08, 2013 at 12:03:37PM -0600, Ben Myers wrote: Mark is replacing Alex as my backup because Alex is really busy at Linaro and asked to be taken off awhile ago. The holiday season is coming up and I fully intend to go off my meds, turn in to Fonzy the bear, and eat my hat. I need someone to watch the shop while I'm off exploring on Mars. I trust Mark to do that because he is totally awesome. Doing this as an unilateral decisions is not something that will win you a fan base. It's posted for review. While we never had anything reassembling a democracy in Linux Kernel development making decisions without even contacting the major contributor is wrong, twice so if the maintainer is a relatively minor contributor to start with. Just because it recent came up elsewhere I'd like to recite the definition from Trond here again: http://lists.linux-foundation.org/pipermail/ksummit-2012-discuss/2012-June/66.html By many of the creative roles enlisted there it's clear that Dave should be the maintainer. He's been the main contributor and chief architect for XFS for many year, while the maintainers came and went at the mercy of SGI. This is not meant to bad mouth either of you as I think you're doing a reasonably good job compared to other maintainers, but at the same time the direction is set by other people that have a much longer involvement with the project, and having them officially in control would help us forward a lot. It would also avoid having to spend considerable resources to train every new generation of SGI maintainer. Coming to and end I would like to maintain Dave Chinner as the primary XFS maintainer for all the work he has done as biggest contributor and architect of XFS since longer than I can remember, and I would love to retain Ben Myers as a co-maintainer for all the good work he has done maintaining and reviewing patches since November 2011. I think we're doing a decent job too. So thanks for that much at least. ;) I would also like to use this post as a public venue to condemn the unilateral smokey backroom decisions about XFS maintainership that SGI is trying to enforce on the community. That really didn't happen Christoph. It's not in my tree or in a pull request. Linus, let me know what you want to do. I do think we're doing a fair job over here, and (geez) I'm just trying to add Mark as my backup since Alex is too busy. I know the RH people want more control, and that's understandable, but they really don't need to replace me to get their code in. Ouch. Thanks, Ben Christoph is not a Red Hat person. Jeff is from Oracle. This is not a Red Hat vs SGI thing, Sorry if my read on that was wrong. Dave simply has earned the right to take on the formal leadership role of maintainer. Then we're gonna need some Reviewed-bys. ;) From: Ben Myers b...@sgi.com xfs: update maintainers Add Dave as maintainer of XFS. Signed-off-by: Ben Myers b...@sgi.com --- MAINTAINERS |2 +- 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-) Index: b/MAINTAINERS === --- a/MAINTAINERS 2013-11-08 15:20:18.935186245 -0600 +++ b/MAINTAINERS 2013-11-08 15:22:50.685245977 -0600 @@ -9387,8 +9387,8 @@ F:drivers/xen/*swiotlb* XFS FILESYSTEM P: Silicon Graphics Inc +M: Dave Chinner dchin...@fromorbit.com Use his personal private mail account? I guess that you should ask for his opinion at first, or it is more appropriate that he submit this patch by himself. If y'all don't mind, I'd like to have authored this one. ;) Indeed. And does he even want the job? I heard Linus say in a recent interview that being a maintainer is a $#!+ job. I've found that it can be a little bit stressful sometimes and it tends to crowd out feature work, so I guess I agree with him. It turns out to be an excellent weight loss plan. Is it really best for the most active developers to be burdened with that extra work? (hmm.. maybe I should add Dave to the Cc here .. but no-one else did so best leave him alone to code in peace). Dave, what do you want to do here? Which email? What sort of arrangement? I gather that you probably do want the job, and I know you'll be fantastic. Do you want to do
Re: [PATCH] update xfs maintainers
Dave, On Sat, Nov 09, 2013 at 05:51:30PM -0600, Ben Myers wrote: Hey Neil, On Sat, Nov 09, 2013 at 10:44:24AM +1100, NeilBrown wrote: On Sat, 9 Nov 2013 06:59:00 +0800 Zhi Yong Wu zwu.ker...@gmail.com wrote: On Sat, Nov 9, 2013 at 6:03 AM, Ben Myers b...@sgi.com wrote: Hey Ric, On Fri, Nov 08, 2013 at 03:50:21PM -0500, Ric Wheeler wrote: On 11/08/2013 03:46 PM, Ben Myers wrote: Hey Christoph, On Fri, Nov 08, 2013 at 11:34:24AM -0800, Christoph Hellwig wrote: On Fri, Nov 08, 2013 at 12:03:37PM -0600, Ben Myers wrote: Mark is replacing Alex as my backup because Alex is really busy at Linaro and asked to be taken off awhile ago. The holiday season is coming up and I fully intend to go off my meds, turn in to Fonzy the bear, and eat my hat. I need someone to watch the shop while I'm off exploring on Mars. I trust Mark to do that because he is totally awesome. Doing this as an unilateral decisions is not something that will win you a fan base. It's posted for review. While we never had anything reassembling a democracy in Linux Kernel development making decisions without even contacting the major contributor is wrong, twice so if the maintainer is a relatively minor contributor to start with. Just because it recent came up elsewhere I'd like to recite the definition from Trond here again: http://lists.linux-foundation.org/pipermail/ksummit-2012-discuss/2012-June/66.html By many of the creative roles enlisted there it's clear that Dave should be the maintainer. He's been the main contributor and chief architect for XFS for many year, while the maintainers came and went at the mercy of SGI. This is not meant to bad mouth either of you as I think you're doing a reasonably good job compared to other maintainers, but at the same time the direction is set by other people that have a much longer involvement with the project, and having them officially in control would help us forward a lot. It would also avoid having to spend considerable resources to train every new generation of SGI maintainer. Coming to and end I would like to maintain Dave Chinner as the primary XFS maintainer for all the work he has done as biggest contributor and architect of XFS since longer than I can remember, and I would love to retain Ben Myers as a co-maintainer for all the good work he has done maintaining and reviewing patches since November 2011. I think we're doing a decent job too. So thanks for that much at least. ;) I would also like to use this post as a public venue to condemn the unilateral smokey backroom decisions about XFS maintainership that SGI is trying to enforce on the community. That really didn't happen Christoph. It's not in my tree or in a pull request. Linus, let me know what you want to do. I do think we're doing a fair job over here, and (geez) I'm just trying to add Mark as my backup since Alex is too busy. I know the RH people want more control, and that's understandable, but they really don't need to replace me to get their code in. Ouch. Thanks, Ben Christoph is not a Red Hat person. Jeff is from Oracle. This is not a Red Hat vs SGI thing, Sorry if my read on that was wrong. Dave simply has earned the right to take on the formal leadership role of maintainer. Then we're gonna need some Reviewed-bys. ;) From: Ben Myers b...@sgi.com xfs: update maintainers Add Dave as maintainer of XFS. Signed-off-by: Ben Myers b...@sgi.com --- MAINTAINERS |2 +- 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-) Index: b/MAINTAINERS === --- a/MAINTAINERS 2013-11-08 15:20:18.935186245 -0600 +++ b/MAINTAINERS 2013-11-08 15:22:50.685245977 -0600 @@ -9387,8 +9387,8 @@ F:drivers/xen/*swiotlb* XFS FILESYSTEM P: Silicon Graphics Inc +M: Dave Chinner dchin...@fromorbit.com Use his personal private mail account? I guess that you should ask for his opinion at first, or it is more appropriate that he submit this patch by himself. If y'all don't mind, I'd like to have authored this one. ;) Indeed. And does he even want the job? I heard Linus say in a recent interview that being a maintainer is a $#!+ job. I've found that it can be a little bit stressful sometimes and it tends to crowd out feature work, so I guess I agree with him. It turns out to be an excellent weight loss plan. Is it really best for the most active developers to be burdened with that extra work? (hmm.. maybe I should add Dave to the Cc here
Re: [PATCH] update xfs maintainers
Dave is on the other side of the international date line from those of us in the States. If my time zone math is correct, this thread began and continued *after* the end of his 'normal' Friday workday, during Dave's weekend. You think it might be possible he decided to unplug and actually live for a couple of days? Put this on hold until Monday. -- Stan On 11/9/2013 6:30 PM, Ben Myers wrote: Dave, On Sat, Nov 09, 2013 at 05:51:30PM -0600, Ben Myers wrote: Hey Neil, On Sat, Nov 09, 2013 at 10:44:24AM +1100, NeilBrown wrote: On Sat, 9 Nov 2013 06:59:00 +0800 Zhi Yong Wu zwu.ker...@gmail.com wrote: On Sat, Nov 9, 2013 at 6:03 AM, Ben Myers b...@sgi.com wrote: Hey Ric, On Fri, Nov 08, 2013 at 03:50:21PM -0500, Ric Wheeler wrote: On 11/08/2013 03:46 PM, Ben Myers wrote: Hey Christoph, On Fri, Nov 08, 2013 at 11:34:24AM -0800, Christoph Hellwig wrote: On Fri, Nov 08, 2013 at 12:03:37PM -0600, Ben Myers wrote: Mark is replacing Alex as my backup because Alex is really busy at Linaro and asked to be taken off awhile ago. The holiday season is coming up and I fully intend to go off my meds, turn in to Fonzy the bear, and eat my hat. I need someone to watch the shop while I'm off exploring on Mars. I trust Mark to do that because he is totally awesome. Doing this as an unilateral decisions is not something that will win you a fan base. It's posted for review. While we never had anything reassembling a democracy in Linux Kernel development making decisions without even contacting the major contributor is wrong, twice so if the maintainer is a relatively minor contributor to start with. Just because it recent came up elsewhere I'd like to recite the definition from Trond here again: http://lists.linux-foundation.org/pipermail/ksummit-2012-discuss/2012-June/66.html By many of the creative roles enlisted there it's clear that Dave should be the maintainer. He's been the main contributor and chief architect for XFS for many year, while the maintainers came and went at the mercy of SGI. This is not meant to bad mouth either of you as I think you're doing a reasonably good job compared to other maintainers, but at the same time the direction is set by other people that have a much longer involvement with the project, and having them officially in control would help us forward a lot. It would also avoid having to spend considerable resources to train every new generation of SGI maintainer. Coming to and end I would like to maintain Dave Chinner as the primary XFS maintainer for all the work he has done as biggest contributor and architect of XFS since longer than I can remember, and I would love to retain Ben Myers as a co-maintainer for all the good work he has done maintaining and reviewing patches since November 2011. I think we're doing a decent job too. So thanks for that much at least. ;) I would also like to use this post as a public venue to condemn the unilateral smokey backroom decisions about XFS maintainership that SGI is trying to enforce on the community. That really didn't happen Christoph. It's not in my tree or in a pull request. Linus, let me know what you want to do. I do think we're doing a fair job over here, and (geez) I'm just trying to add Mark as my backup since Alex is too busy. I know the RH people want more control, and that's understandable, but they really don't need to replace me to get their code in. Ouch. Thanks, Ben Christoph is not a Red Hat person. Jeff is from Oracle. This is not a Red Hat vs SGI thing, Sorry if my read on that was wrong. Dave simply has earned the right to take on the formal leadership role of maintainer. Then we're gonna need some Reviewed-bys. ;) From: Ben Myers b...@sgi.com xfs: update maintainers Add Dave as maintainer of XFS. Signed-off-by: Ben Myers b...@sgi.com --- MAINTAINERS |2 +- 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-) Index: b/MAINTAINERS === --- a/MAINTAINERS 2013-11-08 15:20:18.935186245 -0600 +++ b/MAINTAINERS 2013-11-08 15:22:50.685245977 -0600 @@ -9387,8 +9387,8 @@ F:drivers/xen/*swiotlb* XFS FILESYSTEM P: Silicon Graphics Inc +M: Dave Chinner dchin...@fromorbit.com Use his personal private mail account? I guess that you should ask for his opinion at first, or it is more appropriate that he submit this patch by himself. If y'all don't mind, I'd like to have authored this one. ;) Indeed. And does he even want the job? I heard Linus say in a recent interview that being a maintainer is a $#!+ job. I've found that it can be a little bit stressful sometimes and it tends to crowd out feature work, so I guess I agree with him. It turns out to be an excellent weight loss plan. Is it really best for the most active developers to be burdened with that extra work? (hmm.. maybe I should
Re: [PATCH] update xfs maintainers
On Sat, 9 Nov 2013 06:59:00 +0800 Zhi Yong Wu wrote: > On Sat, Nov 9, 2013 at 6:03 AM, Ben Myers wrote: > > Hey Ric, > > > > On Fri, Nov 08, 2013 at 03:50:21PM -0500, Ric Wheeler wrote: > >> On 11/08/2013 03:46 PM, Ben Myers wrote: > >> >Hey Christoph, > >> > > >> >On Fri, Nov 08, 2013 at 11:34:24AM -0800, Christoph Hellwig wrote: > >> >>On Fri, Nov 08, 2013 at 12:03:37PM -0600, Ben Myers wrote: > >> >>>Mark is replacing Alex as my backup because Alex is really busy at > >> >>>Linaro and asked to be taken off awhile ago. The holiday season is > >> >>>coming up and I fully intend to go off my meds, turn in to Fonzy the > >> >>>bear, and eat my hat. I need someone to watch the shop while I'm off > >> >>>exploring on Mars. I trust Mark to do that because he is totally > >> >>>awesome. > >> >> > >> >>Doing this as an unilateral decisions is not something that will win you > >> >>a fan base. > >> >It's posted for review. > >> > > >> >>While we never had anything reassembling a democracy in Linux Kernel > >> >>development making decisions without even contacting the major > >> >>contributor is wrong, twice so if the maintainer is a relatively minor > >> >>contributor to start with. > >> >> > >> >>Just because it recent came up elsewhere I'd like to recite the > >> >>definition from Trond here again: > >> >> > >> >> > >> >> http://lists.linux-foundation.org/pipermail/ksummit-2012-discuss/2012-June/66.html > >> >> > >> >>By many of the creative roles enlisted there it's clear that Dave should > >> >>be the maintainer. He's been the main contributor and chief architect > >> >>for XFS for many year, while the maintainers came and went at the mercy > >> >>of SGI. This is not meant to bad mouth either of you as I think you're > >> >>doing a reasonably good job compared to other maintainers, but at the > >> >>same time the direction is set by other people that have a much longer > >> >>involvement with the project, and having them officially in control > >> >>would help us forward a lot. It would also avoid having to spend > >> >>considerable resources to train every new generation of SGI maintainer. > >> >> > >> >>Coming to and end I would like to maintain Dave Chinner as the primary > >> >>XFS maintainer for all the work he has done as biggest contributor and > >> >>architect of XFS since longer than I can remember, and I would love to > >> >>retain Ben Myers as a co-maintainer for all the good work he has done > >> >>maintaining and reviewing patches since November 2011. > >> >I think we're doing a decent job too. So thanks for that much at least. > >> >;) > >> >>I would also like to use this post as a public venue to condemn the > >> >>unilateral smokey backroom decisions about XFS maintainership that SGI is > >> >>trying to enforce on the community. > >> >That really didn't happen Christoph. It's not in my tree or in a pull > >> >request. > >> > > >> >Linus, let me know what you want to do. I do think we're doing a fair > >> >job over > >> >here, and (geez) I'm just trying to add Mark as my backup since Alex is > >> >too > >> >busy. I know the RH people want more control, and that's understandable, > >> >but > >> >they really don't need to replace me to get their code in. Ouch. > >> > > >> >Thanks, > >> > Ben > >> > >> Christoph is not a Red Hat person. > >> > >> Jeff is from Oracle. > >> > >> This is not a Red Hat vs SGI thing, > > > > Sorry if my read on that was wrong. > > > >> Dave simply has earned the right > >> to take on the formal leadership role of maintainer. > > > > Then we're gonna need some Reviewed-bys. ;) > > > > From: Ben Myers > > > > xfs: update maintainers > > > > Add Dave as maintainer of XFS. > > > > Signed-off-by: Ben Myers > > --- > > MAINTAINERS |2 +- > > 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-) > > > > Index: b/MAINTAINERS > > === > > --- a/MAINTAINERS 2013-11-08 15:20:18.935186245 -0600 > > +++ b/MAINTAINERS 2013-11-08 15:22:50.685245977 -0600 > > @@ -9387,8 +9387,8 @@ F:drivers/xen/*swiotlb* > > > > XFS FILESYSTEM > > P: Silicon Graphics Inc > > +M: Dave Chinner > Use his personal private mail account? I guess that you should ask for > his opinion at first, or it is more appropriate that he submit this > patch by himself. > Indeed. And does he even want the job? I heard Linus say in a recent interview that being a maintainer is a $#!+ job. Is it really best for the most active developers to be burdened with that extra work? (hmm.. maybe I should add Dave to the Cc here .. but no-one else did so best leave him alone to code in peace). NeilBrown signature.asc Description: PGP signature
Re: [PATCH] update xfs maintainers
On 11/08/2013 05:17 PM, Ben Myers wrote: Hey Ric, On Fri, Nov 08, 2013 at 05:07:45PM -0500, Ric Wheeler wrote: On 11/08/2013 05:03 PM, Ben Myers wrote: Hey Ric, On Fri, Nov 08, 2013 at 03:50:21PM -0500, Ric Wheeler wrote: On 11/08/2013 03:46 PM, Ben Myers wrote: Hey Christoph, On Fri, Nov 08, 2013 at 11:34:24AM -0800, Christoph Hellwig wrote: On Fri, Nov 08, 2013 at 12:03:37PM -0600, Ben Myers wrote: Mark is replacing Alex as my backup because Alex is really busy at Linaro and asked to be taken off awhile ago. The holiday season is coming up and I fully intend to go off my meds, turn in to Fonzy the bear, and eat my hat. I need someone to watch the shop while I'm off exploring on Mars. I trust Mark to do that because he is totally awesome. Doing this as an unilateral decisions is not something that will win you a fan base. It's posted for review. While we never had anything reassembling a democracy in Linux Kernel development making decisions without even contacting the major contributor is wrong, twice so if the maintainer is a relatively minor contributor to start with. Just because it recent came up elsewhere I'd like to recite the definition from Trond here again: http://lists.linux-foundation.org/pipermail/ksummit-2012-discuss/2012-June/66.html By many of the creative roles enlisted there it's clear that Dave should be the maintainer. He's been the main contributor and chief architect for XFS for many year, while the maintainers came and went at the mercy of SGI. This is not meant to bad mouth either of you as I think you're doing a reasonably good job compared to other maintainers, but at the same time the direction is set by other people that have a much longer involvement with the project, and having them officially in control would help us forward a lot. It would also avoid having to spend considerable resources to train every new generation of SGI maintainer. Coming to and end I would like to maintain Dave Chinner as the primary XFS maintainer for all the work he has done as biggest contributor and architect of XFS since longer than I can remember, and I would love to retain Ben Myers as a co-maintainer for all the good work he has done maintaining and reviewing patches since November 2011. I think we're doing a decent job too. So thanks for that much at least. ;) I would also like to use this post as a public venue to condemn the unilateral smokey backroom decisions about XFS maintainership that SGI is trying to enforce on the community. That really didn't happen Christoph. It's not in my tree or in a pull request. Linus, let me know what you want to do. I do think we're doing a fair job over here, and (geez) I'm just trying to add Mark as my backup since Alex is too busy. I know the RH people want more control, and that's understandable, but they really don't need to replace me to get their code in. Ouch. Thanks, Ben Christoph is not a Red Hat person. Jeff is from Oracle. This is not a Red Hat vs SGI thing, Sorry if my read on that was wrong. I do appreciate the work and effort you and the SGI team put in but think that this will be a good way to keep the community happier and even more productive going forward. Dave simply has earned the right to take on the formal leadership role of maintainer. Then we're gonna need some Reviewed-bys. ;) Those should come from the developers, thanks! I actually do need your Reviewed-by. We'll try and get this one in 3.13. ;) Thanks, Ben Happy to do that - I do think that Dave mostly posts from his redhat.com account, but he can comment once he gets back online. Reviewed-by: Ric Wheeler From: Ben Myers xfs: update maintainers Add Dave as maintainer of XFS. Signed-off-by: Ben Myers --- MAINTAINERS |2 +- 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-) Index: b/MAINTAINERS === --- a/MAINTAINERS 2013-11-08 15:20:18.935186245 -0600 +++ b/MAINTAINERS 2013-11-08 15:22:50.685245977 -0600 @@ -9387,8 +9387,8 @@ F:drivers/xen/*swiotlb* XFS FILESYSTEM P:Silicon Graphics Inc +M: Dave Chinner M:Ben Myers -M: Alex Elder M:x...@oss.sgi.com L:x...@oss.sgi.com W:http://oss.sgi.com/projects/xfs -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Re: [PATCH] update xfs maintainers
On Sat, Nov 9, 2013 at 6:03 AM, Ben Myers wrote: > Hey Ric, > > On Fri, Nov 08, 2013 at 03:50:21PM -0500, Ric Wheeler wrote: >> On 11/08/2013 03:46 PM, Ben Myers wrote: >> >Hey Christoph, >> > >> >On Fri, Nov 08, 2013 at 11:34:24AM -0800, Christoph Hellwig wrote: >> >>On Fri, Nov 08, 2013 at 12:03:37PM -0600, Ben Myers wrote: >> >>>Mark is replacing Alex as my backup because Alex is really busy at >> >>>Linaro and asked to be taken off awhile ago. The holiday season is >> >>>coming up and I fully intend to go off my meds, turn in to Fonzy the >> >>>bear, and eat my hat. I need someone to watch the shop while I'm off >> >>>exploring on Mars. I trust Mark to do that because he is totally >> >>>awesome. >> >> >> >>Doing this as an unilateral decisions is not something that will win you >> >>a fan base. >> >It's posted for review. >> > >> >>While we never had anything reassembling a democracy in Linux Kernel >> >>development making decisions without even contacting the major >> >>contributor is wrong, twice so if the maintainer is a relatively minor >> >>contributor to start with. >> >> >> >>Just because it recent came up elsewhere I'd like to recite the >> >>definition from Trond here again: >> >> >> >> >> >> http://lists.linux-foundation.org/pipermail/ksummit-2012-discuss/2012-June/66.html >> >> >> >>By many of the creative roles enlisted there it's clear that Dave should >> >>be the maintainer. He's been the main contributor and chief architect >> >>for XFS for many year, while the maintainers came and went at the mercy >> >>of SGI. This is not meant to bad mouth either of you as I think you're >> >>doing a reasonably good job compared to other maintainers, but at the >> >>same time the direction is set by other people that have a much longer >> >>involvement with the project, and having them officially in control >> >>would help us forward a lot. It would also avoid having to spend >> >>considerable resources to train every new generation of SGI maintainer. >> >> >> >>Coming to and end I would like to maintain Dave Chinner as the primary >> >>XFS maintainer for all the work he has done as biggest contributor and >> >>architect of XFS since longer than I can remember, and I would love to >> >>retain Ben Myers as a co-maintainer for all the good work he has done >> >>maintaining and reviewing patches since November 2011. >> >I think we're doing a decent job too. So thanks for that much at least. ;) >> >>I would also like to use this post as a public venue to condemn the >> >>unilateral smokey backroom decisions about XFS maintainership that SGI is >> >>trying to enforce on the community. >> >That really didn't happen Christoph. It's not in my tree or in a pull >> >request. >> > >> >Linus, let me know what you want to do. I do think we're doing a fair job >> >over >> >here, and (geez) I'm just trying to add Mark as my backup since Alex is too >> >busy. I know the RH people want more control, and that's understandable, >> >but >> >they really don't need to replace me to get their code in. Ouch. >> > >> >Thanks, >> > Ben >> >> Christoph is not a Red Hat person. >> >> Jeff is from Oracle. >> >> This is not a Red Hat vs SGI thing, > > Sorry if my read on that was wrong. > >> Dave simply has earned the right >> to take on the formal leadership role of maintainer. > > Then we're gonna need some Reviewed-bys. ;) > > From: Ben Myers > > xfs: update maintainers > > Add Dave as maintainer of XFS. > > Signed-off-by: Ben Myers > --- > MAINTAINERS |2 +- > 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-) > > Index: b/MAINTAINERS > === > --- a/MAINTAINERS 2013-11-08 15:20:18.935186245 -0600 > +++ b/MAINTAINERS 2013-11-08 15:22:50.685245977 -0600 > @@ -9387,8 +9387,8 @@ F:drivers/xen/*swiotlb* > > XFS FILESYSTEM > P: Silicon Graphics Inc > +M: Dave Chinner Use his personal private mail account? I guess that you should ask for his opinion at first, or it is more appropriate that he submit this patch by himself. > M: Ben Myers > -M: Alex Elder > M: x...@oss.sgi.com > L: x...@oss.sgi.com > W: http://oss.sgi.com/projects/xfs > > ___ > xfs mailing list > x...@oss.sgi.com > http://oss.sgi.com/mailman/listinfo/xfs -- Regards, Zhi Yong Wu -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Re: [PATCH] update xfs maintainers
Hey Ric, On Fri, Nov 08, 2013 at 05:07:45PM -0500, Ric Wheeler wrote: > On 11/08/2013 05:03 PM, Ben Myers wrote: > >Hey Ric, > > > >On Fri, Nov 08, 2013 at 03:50:21PM -0500, Ric Wheeler wrote: > >>On 11/08/2013 03:46 PM, Ben Myers wrote: > >>>Hey Christoph, > >>> > >>>On Fri, Nov 08, 2013 at 11:34:24AM -0800, Christoph Hellwig wrote: > On Fri, Nov 08, 2013 at 12:03:37PM -0600, Ben Myers wrote: > >Mark is replacing Alex as my backup because Alex is really busy at > >Linaro and asked to be taken off awhile ago. The holiday season is > >coming up and I fully intend to go off my meds, turn in to Fonzy the > >bear, and eat my hat. I need someone to watch the shop while I'm off > >exploring on Mars. I trust Mark to do that because he is totally > >awesome. > Doing this as an unilateral decisions is not something that will win you > a fan base. > >>>It's posted for review. > >>> > While we never had anything reassembling a democracy in Linux Kernel > development making decisions without even contacting the major > contributor is wrong, twice so if the maintainer is a relatively minor > contributor to start with. > > Just because it recent came up elsewhere I'd like to recite the > definition from Trond here again: > > > http://lists.linux-foundation.org/pipermail/ksummit-2012-discuss/2012-June/66.html > > By many of the creative roles enlisted there it's clear that Dave should > be the maintainer. He's been the main contributor and chief architect > for XFS for many year, while the maintainers came and went at the mercy > of SGI. This is not meant to bad mouth either of you as I think you're > doing a reasonably good job compared to other maintainers, but at the > same time the direction is set by other people that have a much longer > involvement with the project, and having them officially in control > would help us forward a lot. It would also avoid having to spend > considerable resources to train every new generation of SGI maintainer. > > Coming to and end I would like to maintain Dave Chinner as the primary > XFS maintainer for all the work he has done as biggest contributor and > architect of XFS since longer than I can remember, and I would love to > retain Ben Myers as a co-maintainer for all the good work he has done > maintaining and reviewing patches since November 2011. > >>>I think we're doing a decent job too. So thanks for that much at least. > >>>;) > I would also like to use this post as a public venue to condemn the > unilateral smokey backroom decisions about XFS maintainership that SGI is > trying to enforce on the community. > >>>That really didn't happen Christoph. It's not in my tree or in a pull > >>>request. > >>> > >>>Linus, let me know what you want to do. I do think we're doing a fair job > >>>over > >>>here, and (geez) I'm just trying to add Mark as my backup since Alex is too > >>>busy. I know the RH people want more control, and that's understandable, > >>>but > >>>they really don't need to replace me to get their code in. Ouch. > >>> > >>>Thanks, > >>> Ben > >>Christoph is not a Red Hat person. > >> > >>Jeff is from Oracle. > >> > >>This is not a Red Hat vs SGI thing, > >Sorry if my read on that was wrong. > > I do appreciate the work and effort you and the SGI team put in but > think that this will be a good way to keep the community happier and > even more productive going forward. > > >>Dave simply has earned the right > >>to take on the formal leadership role of maintainer. > >Then we're gonna need some Reviewed-bys. ;) > > Those should come from the developers, thanks! I actually do need your Reviewed-by. We'll try and get this one in 3.13. ;) Thanks, Ben > >From: Ben Myers > > > >xfs: update maintainers > > > >Add Dave as maintainer of XFS. > > > >Signed-off-by: Ben Myers > >--- > > MAINTAINERS |2 +- > > 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-) > > > >Index: b/MAINTAINERS > >=== > >--- a/MAINTAINERS2013-11-08 15:20:18.935186245 -0600 > >+++ b/MAINTAINERS2013-11-08 15:22:50.685245977 -0600 > >@@ -9387,8 +9387,8 @@ F: drivers/xen/*swiotlb* > > XFS FILESYSTEM > > P: Silicon Graphics Inc > >+M: Dave Chinner > > M: Ben Myers > >-M: Alex Elder > > M: x...@oss.sgi.com > > L: x...@oss.sgi.com > > W: http://oss.sgi.com/projects/xfs > -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Re: [PATCH] update xfs maintainers
On 11/08/2013 05:03 PM, Ben Myers wrote: Hey Ric, On Fri, Nov 08, 2013 at 03:50:21PM -0500, Ric Wheeler wrote: On 11/08/2013 03:46 PM, Ben Myers wrote: Hey Christoph, On Fri, Nov 08, 2013 at 11:34:24AM -0800, Christoph Hellwig wrote: On Fri, Nov 08, 2013 at 12:03:37PM -0600, Ben Myers wrote: Mark is replacing Alex as my backup because Alex is really busy at Linaro and asked to be taken off awhile ago. The holiday season is coming up and I fully intend to go off my meds, turn in to Fonzy the bear, and eat my hat. I need someone to watch the shop while I'm off exploring on Mars. I trust Mark to do that because he is totally awesome. Doing this as an unilateral decisions is not something that will win you a fan base. It's posted for review. While we never had anything reassembling a democracy in Linux Kernel development making decisions without even contacting the major contributor is wrong, twice so if the maintainer is a relatively minor contributor to start with. Just because it recent came up elsewhere I'd like to recite the definition from Trond here again: http://lists.linux-foundation.org/pipermail/ksummit-2012-discuss/2012-June/66.html By many of the creative roles enlisted there it's clear that Dave should be the maintainer. He's been the main contributor and chief architect for XFS for many year, while the maintainers came and went at the mercy of SGI. This is not meant to bad mouth either of you as I think you're doing a reasonably good job compared to other maintainers, but at the same time the direction is set by other people that have a much longer involvement with the project, and having them officially in control would help us forward a lot. It would also avoid having to spend considerable resources to train every new generation of SGI maintainer. Coming to and end I would like to maintain Dave Chinner as the primary XFS maintainer for all the work he has done as biggest contributor and architect of XFS since longer than I can remember, and I would love to retain Ben Myers as a co-maintainer for all the good work he has done maintaining and reviewing patches since November 2011. I think we're doing a decent job too. So thanks for that much at least. ;) I would also like to use this post as a public venue to condemn the unilateral smokey backroom decisions about XFS maintainership that SGI is trying to enforce on the community. That really didn't happen Christoph. It's not in my tree or in a pull request. Linus, let me know what you want to do. I do think we're doing a fair job over here, and (geez) I'm just trying to add Mark as my backup since Alex is too busy. I know the RH people want more control, and that's understandable, but they really don't need to replace me to get their code in. Ouch. Thanks, Ben Christoph is not a Red Hat person. Jeff is from Oracle. This is not a Red Hat vs SGI thing, Sorry if my read on that was wrong. I do appreciate the work and effort you and the SGI team put in but think that this will be a good way to keep the community happier and even more productive going forward. Dave simply has earned the right to take on the formal leadership role of maintainer. Then we're gonna need some Reviewed-bys. ;) Those should come from the developers, thanks! Ric From: Ben Myers xfs: update maintainers Add Dave as maintainer of XFS. Signed-off-by: Ben Myers --- MAINTAINERS |2 +- 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-) Index: b/MAINTAINERS === --- a/MAINTAINERS 2013-11-08 15:20:18.935186245 -0600 +++ b/MAINTAINERS 2013-11-08 15:22:50.685245977 -0600 @@ -9387,8 +9387,8 @@ F:drivers/xen/*swiotlb* XFS FILESYSTEM P:Silicon Graphics Inc +M: Dave Chinner M:Ben Myers -M: Alex Elder M:x...@oss.sgi.com L:x...@oss.sgi.com W:http://oss.sgi.com/projects/xfs -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
[PATCH] update xfs maintainers
Hey Ric, On Fri, Nov 08, 2013 at 03:50:21PM -0500, Ric Wheeler wrote: > On 11/08/2013 03:46 PM, Ben Myers wrote: > >Hey Christoph, > > > >On Fri, Nov 08, 2013 at 11:34:24AM -0800, Christoph Hellwig wrote: > >>On Fri, Nov 08, 2013 at 12:03:37PM -0600, Ben Myers wrote: > >>>Mark is replacing Alex as my backup because Alex is really busy at > >>>Linaro and asked to be taken off awhile ago. The holiday season is > >>>coming up and I fully intend to go off my meds, turn in to Fonzy the > >>>bear, and eat my hat. I need someone to watch the shop while I'm off > >>>exploring on Mars. I trust Mark to do that because he is totally > >>>awesome. > >> > >>Doing this as an unilateral decisions is not something that will win you > >>a fan base. > >It's posted for review. > > > >>While we never had anything reassembling a democracy in Linux Kernel > >>development making decisions without even contacting the major > >>contributor is wrong, twice so if the maintainer is a relatively minor > >>contributor to start with. > >> > >>Just because it recent came up elsewhere I'd like to recite the > >>definition from Trond here again: > >> > >> > >> http://lists.linux-foundation.org/pipermail/ksummit-2012-discuss/2012-June/66.html > >> > >>By many of the creative roles enlisted there it's clear that Dave should > >>be the maintainer. He's been the main contributor and chief architect > >>for XFS for many year, while the maintainers came and went at the mercy > >>of SGI. This is not meant to bad mouth either of you as I think you're > >>doing a reasonably good job compared to other maintainers, but at the > >>same time the direction is set by other people that have a much longer > >>involvement with the project, and having them officially in control > >>would help us forward a lot. It would also avoid having to spend > >>considerable resources to train every new generation of SGI maintainer. > >> > >>Coming to and end I would like to maintain Dave Chinner as the primary > >>XFS maintainer for all the work he has done as biggest contributor and > >>architect of XFS since longer than I can remember, and I would love to > >>retain Ben Myers as a co-maintainer for all the good work he has done > >>maintaining and reviewing patches since November 2011. > >I think we're doing a decent job too. So thanks for that much at least. ;) > >>I would also like to use this post as a public venue to condemn the > >>unilateral smokey backroom decisions about XFS maintainership that SGI is > >>trying to enforce on the community. > >That really didn't happen Christoph. It's not in my tree or in a pull > >request. > > > >Linus, let me know what you want to do. I do think we're doing a fair job > >over > >here, and (geez) I'm just trying to add Mark as my backup since Alex is too > >busy. I know the RH people want more control, and that's understandable, but > >they really don't need to replace me to get their code in. Ouch. > > > >Thanks, > > Ben > > Christoph is not a Red Hat person. > > Jeff is from Oracle. > > This is not a Red Hat vs SGI thing, Sorry if my read on that was wrong. > Dave simply has earned the right > to take on the formal leadership role of maintainer. Then we're gonna need some Reviewed-bys. ;) From: Ben Myers xfs: update maintainers Add Dave as maintainer of XFS. Signed-off-by: Ben Myers --- MAINTAINERS |2 +- 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-) Index: b/MAINTAINERS === --- a/MAINTAINERS 2013-11-08 15:20:18.935186245 -0600 +++ b/MAINTAINERS 2013-11-08 15:22:50.685245977 -0600 @@ -9387,8 +9387,8 @@ F:drivers/xen/*swiotlb* XFS FILESYSTEM P: Silicon Graphics Inc +M: Dave Chinner M: Ben Myers -M: Alex Elder M: x...@oss.sgi.com L: x...@oss.sgi.com W: http://oss.sgi.com/projects/xfs -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
[PATCH] update xfs maintainers
Hey Ric, On Fri, Nov 08, 2013 at 03:50:21PM -0500, Ric Wheeler wrote: On 11/08/2013 03:46 PM, Ben Myers wrote: Hey Christoph, On Fri, Nov 08, 2013 at 11:34:24AM -0800, Christoph Hellwig wrote: On Fri, Nov 08, 2013 at 12:03:37PM -0600, Ben Myers wrote: Mark is replacing Alex as my backup because Alex is really busy at Linaro and asked to be taken off awhile ago. The holiday season is coming up and I fully intend to go off my meds, turn in to Fonzy the bear, and eat my hat. I need someone to watch the shop while I'm off exploring on Mars. I trust Mark to do that because he is totally awesome. Doing this as an unilateral decisions is not something that will win you a fan base. It's posted for review. While we never had anything reassembling a democracy in Linux Kernel development making decisions without even contacting the major contributor is wrong, twice so if the maintainer is a relatively minor contributor to start with. Just because it recent came up elsewhere I'd like to recite the definition from Trond here again: http://lists.linux-foundation.org/pipermail/ksummit-2012-discuss/2012-June/66.html By many of the creative roles enlisted there it's clear that Dave should be the maintainer. He's been the main contributor and chief architect for XFS for many year, while the maintainers came and went at the mercy of SGI. This is not meant to bad mouth either of you as I think you're doing a reasonably good job compared to other maintainers, but at the same time the direction is set by other people that have a much longer involvement with the project, and having them officially in control would help us forward a lot. It would also avoid having to spend considerable resources to train every new generation of SGI maintainer. Coming to and end I would like to maintain Dave Chinner as the primary XFS maintainer for all the work he has done as biggest contributor and architect of XFS since longer than I can remember, and I would love to retain Ben Myers as a co-maintainer for all the good work he has done maintaining and reviewing patches since November 2011. I think we're doing a decent job too. So thanks for that much at least. ;) I would also like to use this post as a public venue to condemn the unilateral smokey backroom decisions about XFS maintainership that SGI is trying to enforce on the community. That really didn't happen Christoph. It's not in my tree or in a pull request. Linus, let me know what you want to do. I do think we're doing a fair job over here, and (geez) I'm just trying to add Mark as my backup since Alex is too busy. I know the RH people want more control, and that's understandable, but they really don't need to replace me to get their code in. Ouch. Thanks, Ben Christoph is not a Red Hat person. Jeff is from Oracle. This is not a Red Hat vs SGI thing, Sorry if my read on that was wrong. Dave simply has earned the right to take on the formal leadership role of maintainer. Then we're gonna need some Reviewed-bys. ;) From: Ben Myers b...@sgi.com xfs: update maintainers Add Dave as maintainer of XFS. Signed-off-by: Ben Myers b...@sgi.com --- MAINTAINERS |2 +- 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-) Index: b/MAINTAINERS === --- a/MAINTAINERS 2013-11-08 15:20:18.935186245 -0600 +++ b/MAINTAINERS 2013-11-08 15:22:50.685245977 -0600 @@ -9387,8 +9387,8 @@ F:drivers/xen/*swiotlb* XFS FILESYSTEM P: Silicon Graphics Inc +M: Dave Chinner dchin...@fromorbit.com M: Ben Myers b...@sgi.com -M: Alex Elder el...@kernel.org M: x...@oss.sgi.com L: x...@oss.sgi.com W: http://oss.sgi.com/projects/xfs -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line unsubscribe linux-kernel in the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Re: [PATCH] update xfs maintainers
On 11/08/2013 05:03 PM, Ben Myers wrote: Hey Ric, On Fri, Nov 08, 2013 at 03:50:21PM -0500, Ric Wheeler wrote: On 11/08/2013 03:46 PM, Ben Myers wrote: Hey Christoph, On Fri, Nov 08, 2013 at 11:34:24AM -0800, Christoph Hellwig wrote: On Fri, Nov 08, 2013 at 12:03:37PM -0600, Ben Myers wrote: Mark is replacing Alex as my backup because Alex is really busy at Linaro and asked to be taken off awhile ago. The holiday season is coming up and I fully intend to go off my meds, turn in to Fonzy the bear, and eat my hat. I need someone to watch the shop while I'm off exploring on Mars. I trust Mark to do that because he is totally awesome. Doing this as an unilateral decisions is not something that will win you a fan base. It's posted for review. While we never had anything reassembling a democracy in Linux Kernel development making decisions without even contacting the major contributor is wrong, twice so if the maintainer is a relatively minor contributor to start with. Just because it recent came up elsewhere I'd like to recite the definition from Trond here again: http://lists.linux-foundation.org/pipermail/ksummit-2012-discuss/2012-June/66.html By many of the creative roles enlisted there it's clear that Dave should be the maintainer. He's been the main contributor and chief architect for XFS for many year, while the maintainers came and went at the mercy of SGI. This is not meant to bad mouth either of you as I think you're doing a reasonably good job compared to other maintainers, but at the same time the direction is set by other people that have a much longer involvement with the project, and having them officially in control would help us forward a lot. It would also avoid having to spend considerable resources to train every new generation of SGI maintainer. Coming to and end I would like to maintain Dave Chinner as the primary XFS maintainer for all the work he has done as biggest contributor and architect of XFS since longer than I can remember, and I would love to retain Ben Myers as a co-maintainer for all the good work he has done maintaining and reviewing patches since November 2011. I think we're doing a decent job too. So thanks for that much at least. ;) I would also like to use this post as a public venue to condemn the unilateral smokey backroom decisions about XFS maintainership that SGI is trying to enforce on the community. That really didn't happen Christoph. It's not in my tree or in a pull request. Linus, let me know what you want to do. I do think we're doing a fair job over here, and (geez) I'm just trying to add Mark as my backup since Alex is too busy. I know the RH people want more control, and that's understandable, but they really don't need to replace me to get their code in. Ouch. Thanks, Ben Christoph is not a Red Hat person. Jeff is from Oracle. This is not a Red Hat vs SGI thing, Sorry if my read on that was wrong. I do appreciate the work and effort you and the SGI team put in but think that this will be a good way to keep the community happier and even more productive going forward. Dave simply has earned the right to take on the formal leadership role of maintainer. Then we're gonna need some Reviewed-bys. ;) Those should come from the developers, thanks! Ric From: Ben Myers b...@sgi.com xfs: update maintainers Add Dave as maintainer of XFS. Signed-off-by: Ben Myers b...@sgi.com --- MAINTAINERS |2 +- 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-) Index: b/MAINTAINERS === --- a/MAINTAINERS 2013-11-08 15:20:18.935186245 -0600 +++ b/MAINTAINERS 2013-11-08 15:22:50.685245977 -0600 @@ -9387,8 +9387,8 @@ F:drivers/xen/*swiotlb* XFS FILESYSTEM P:Silicon Graphics Inc +M: Dave Chinner dchin...@fromorbit.com M:Ben Myers b...@sgi.com -M: Alex Elder el...@kernel.org M:x...@oss.sgi.com L:x...@oss.sgi.com W:http://oss.sgi.com/projects/xfs -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line unsubscribe linux-kernel in the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Re: [PATCH] update xfs maintainers
Hey Ric, On Fri, Nov 08, 2013 at 05:07:45PM -0500, Ric Wheeler wrote: On 11/08/2013 05:03 PM, Ben Myers wrote: Hey Ric, On Fri, Nov 08, 2013 at 03:50:21PM -0500, Ric Wheeler wrote: On 11/08/2013 03:46 PM, Ben Myers wrote: Hey Christoph, On Fri, Nov 08, 2013 at 11:34:24AM -0800, Christoph Hellwig wrote: On Fri, Nov 08, 2013 at 12:03:37PM -0600, Ben Myers wrote: Mark is replacing Alex as my backup because Alex is really busy at Linaro and asked to be taken off awhile ago. The holiday season is coming up and I fully intend to go off my meds, turn in to Fonzy the bear, and eat my hat. I need someone to watch the shop while I'm off exploring on Mars. I trust Mark to do that because he is totally awesome. Doing this as an unilateral decisions is not something that will win you a fan base. It's posted for review. While we never had anything reassembling a democracy in Linux Kernel development making decisions without even contacting the major contributor is wrong, twice so if the maintainer is a relatively minor contributor to start with. Just because it recent came up elsewhere I'd like to recite the definition from Trond here again: http://lists.linux-foundation.org/pipermail/ksummit-2012-discuss/2012-June/66.html By many of the creative roles enlisted there it's clear that Dave should be the maintainer. He's been the main contributor and chief architect for XFS for many year, while the maintainers came and went at the mercy of SGI. This is not meant to bad mouth either of you as I think you're doing a reasonably good job compared to other maintainers, but at the same time the direction is set by other people that have a much longer involvement with the project, and having them officially in control would help us forward a lot. It would also avoid having to spend considerable resources to train every new generation of SGI maintainer. Coming to and end I would like to maintain Dave Chinner as the primary XFS maintainer for all the work he has done as biggest contributor and architect of XFS since longer than I can remember, and I would love to retain Ben Myers as a co-maintainer for all the good work he has done maintaining and reviewing patches since November 2011. I think we're doing a decent job too. So thanks for that much at least. ;) I would also like to use this post as a public venue to condemn the unilateral smokey backroom decisions about XFS maintainership that SGI is trying to enforce on the community. That really didn't happen Christoph. It's not in my tree or in a pull request. Linus, let me know what you want to do. I do think we're doing a fair job over here, and (geez) I'm just trying to add Mark as my backup since Alex is too busy. I know the RH people want more control, and that's understandable, but they really don't need to replace me to get their code in. Ouch. Thanks, Ben Christoph is not a Red Hat person. Jeff is from Oracle. This is not a Red Hat vs SGI thing, Sorry if my read on that was wrong. I do appreciate the work and effort you and the SGI team put in but think that this will be a good way to keep the community happier and even more productive going forward. Dave simply has earned the right to take on the formal leadership role of maintainer. Then we're gonna need some Reviewed-bys. ;) Those should come from the developers, thanks! I actually do need your Reviewed-by. We'll try and get this one in 3.13. ;) Thanks, Ben From: Ben Myers b...@sgi.com xfs: update maintainers Add Dave as maintainer of XFS. Signed-off-by: Ben Myers b...@sgi.com --- MAINTAINERS |2 +- 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-) Index: b/MAINTAINERS === --- a/MAINTAINERS2013-11-08 15:20:18.935186245 -0600 +++ b/MAINTAINERS2013-11-08 15:22:50.685245977 -0600 @@ -9387,8 +9387,8 @@ F: drivers/xen/*swiotlb* XFS FILESYSTEM P: Silicon Graphics Inc +M: Dave Chinner dchin...@fromorbit.com M: Ben Myers b...@sgi.com -M: Alex Elder el...@kernel.org M: x...@oss.sgi.com L: x...@oss.sgi.com W: http://oss.sgi.com/projects/xfs -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line unsubscribe linux-kernel in the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Re: [PATCH] update xfs maintainers
On Sat, Nov 9, 2013 at 6:03 AM, Ben Myers b...@sgi.com wrote: Hey Ric, On Fri, Nov 08, 2013 at 03:50:21PM -0500, Ric Wheeler wrote: On 11/08/2013 03:46 PM, Ben Myers wrote: Hey Christoph, On Fri, Nov 08, 2013 at 11:34:24AM -0800, Christoph Hellwig wrote: On Fri, Nov 08, 2013 at 12:03:37PM -0600, Ben Myers wrote: Mark is replacing Alex as my backup because Alex is really busy at Linaro and asked to be taken off awhile ago. The holiday season is coming up and I fully intend to go off my meds, turn in to Fonzy the bear, and eat my hat. I need someone to watch the shop while I'm off exploring on Mars. I trust Mark to do that because he is totally awesome. Doing this as an unilateral decisions is not something that will win you a fan base. It's posted for review. While we never had anything reassembling a democracy in Linux Kernel development making decisions without even contacting the major contributor is wrong, twice so if the maintainer is a relatively minor contributor to start with. Just because it recent came up elsewhere I'd like to recite the definition from Trond here again: http://lists.linux-foundation.org/pipermail/ksummit-2012-discuss/2012-June/66.html By many of the creative roles enlisted there it's clear that Dave should be the maintainer. He's been the main contributor and chief architect for XFS for many year, while the maintainers came and went at the mercy of SGI. This is not meant to bad mouth either of you as I think you're doing a reasonably good job compared to other maintainers, but at the same time the direction is set by other people that have a much longer involvement with the project, and having them officially in control would help us forward a lot. It would also avoid having to spend considerable resources to train every new generation of SGI maintainer. Coming to and end I would like to maintain Dave Chinner as the primary XFS maintainer for all the work he has done as biggest contributor and architect of XFS since longer than I can remember, and I would love to retain Ben Myers as a co-maintainer for all the good work he has done maintaining and reviewing patches since November 2011. I think we're doing a decent job too. So thanks for that much at least. ;) I would also like to use this post as a public venue to condemn the unilateral smokey backroom decisions about XFS maintainership that SGI is trying to enforce on the community. That really didn't happen Christoph. It's not in my tree or in a pull request. Linus, let me know what you want to do. I do think we're doing a fair job over here, and (geez) I'm just trying to add Mark as my backup since Alex is too busy. I know the RH people want more control, and that's understandable, but they really don't need to replace me to get their code in. Ouch. Thanks, Ben Christoph is not a Red Hat person. Jeff is from Oracle. This is not a Red Hat vs SGI thing, Sorry if my read on that was wrong. Dave simply has earned the right to take on the formal leadership role of maintainer. Then we're gonna need some Reviewed-bys. ;) From: Ben Myers b...@sgi.com xfs: update maintainers Add Dave as maintainer of XFS. Signed-off-by: Ben Myers b...@sgi.com --- MAINTAINERS |2 +- 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-) Index: b/MAINTAINERS === --- a/MAINTAINERS 2013-11-08 15:20:18.935186245 -0600 +++ b/MAINTAINERS 2013-11-08 15:22:50.685245977 -0600 @@ -9387,8 +9387,8 @@ F:drivers/xen/*swiotlb* XFS FILESYSTEM P: Silicon Graphics Inc +M: Dave Chinner dchin...@fromorbit.com Use his personal private mail account? I guess that you should ask for his opinion at first, or it is more appropriate that he submit this patch by himself. M: Ben Myers b...@sgi.com -M: Alex Elder el...@kernel.org M: x...@oss.sgi.com L: x...@oss.sgi.com W: http://oss.sgi.com/projects/xfs ___ xfs mailing list x...@oss.sgi.com http://oss.sgi.com/mailman/listinfo/xfs -- Regards, Zhi Yong Wu -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line unsubscribe linux-kernel in the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Re: [PATCH] update xfs maintainers
On 11/08/2013 05:17 PM, Ben Myers wrote: Hey Ric, On Fri, Nov 08, 2013 at 05:07:45PM -0500, Ric Wheeler wrote: On 11/08/2013 05:03 PM, Ben Myers wrote: Hey Ric, On Fri, Nov 08, 2013 at 03:50:21PM -0500, Ric Wheeler wrote: On 11/08/2013 03:46 PM, Ben Myers wrote: Hey Christoph, On Fri, Nov 08, 2013 at 11:34:24AM -0800, Christoph Hellwig wrote: On Fri, Nov 08, 2013 at 12:03:37PM -0600, Ben Myers wrote: Mark is replacing Alex as my backup because Alex is really busy at Linaro and asked to be taken off awhile ago. The holiday season is coming up and I fully intend to go off my meds, turn in to Fonzy the bear, and eat my hat. I need someone to watch the shop while I'm off exploring on Mars. I trust Mark to do that because he is totally awesome. Doing this as an unilateral decisions is not something that will win you a fan base. It's posted for review. While we never had anything reassembling a democracy in Linux Kernel development making decisions without even contacting the major contributor is wrong, twice so if the maintainer is a relatively minor contributor to start with. Just because it recent came up elsewhere I'd like to recite the definition from Trond here again: http://lists.linux-foundation.org/pipermail/ksummit-2012-discuss/2012-June/66.html By many of the creative roles enlisted there it's clear that Dave should be the maintainer. He's been the main contributor and chief architect for XFS for many year, while the maintainers came and went at the mercy of SGI. This is not meant to bad mouth either of you as I think you're doing a reasonably good job compared to other maintainers, but at the same time the direction is set by other people that have a much longer involvement with the project, and having them officially in control would help us forward a lot. It would also avoid having to spend considerable resources to train every new generation of SGI maintainer. Coming to and end I would like to maintain Dave Chinner as the primary XFS maintainer for all the work he has done as biggest contributor and architect of XFS since longer than I can remember, and I would love to retain Ben Myers as a co-maintainer for all the good work he has done maintaining and reviewing patches since November 2011. I think we're doing a decent job too. So thanks for that much at least. ;) I would also like to use this post as a public venue to condemn the unilateral smokey backroom decisions about XFS maintainership that SGI is trying to enforce on the community. That really didn't happen Christoph. It's not in my tree or in a pull request. Linus, let me know what you want to do. I do think we're doing a fair job over here, and (geez) I'm just trying to add Mark as my backup since Alex is too busy. I know the RH people want more control, and that's understandable, but they really don't need to replace me to get their code in. Ouch. Thanks, Ben Christoph is not a Red Hat person. Jeff is from Oracle. This is not a Red Hat vs SGI thing, Sorry if my read on that was wrong. I do appreciate the work and effort you and the SGI team put in but think that this will be a good way to keep the community happier and even more productive going forward. Dave simply has earned the right to take on the formal leadership role of maintainer. Then we're gonna need some Reviewed-bys. ;) Those should come from the developers, thanks! I actually do need your Reviewed-by. We'll try and get this one in 3.13. ;) Thanks, Ben Happy to do that - I do think that Dave mostly posts from his redhat.com account, but he can comment once he gets back online. Reviewed-by: Ric Wheeler rwhee...@redhat.com From: Ben Myers b...@sgi.com xfs: update maintainers Add Dave as maintainer of XFS. Signed-off-by: Ben Myers b...@sgi.com --- MAINTAINERS |2 +- 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-) Index: b/MAINTAINERS === --- a/MAINTAINERS 2013-11-08 15:20:18.935186245 -0600 +++ b/MAINTAINERS 2013-11-08 15:22:50.685245977 -0600 @@ -9387,8 +9387,8 @@ F:drivers/xen/*swiotlb* XFS FILESYSTEM P:Silicon Graphics Inc +M: Dave Chinner dchin...@fromorbit.com M:Ben Myers b...@sgi.com -M: Alex Elder el...@kernel.org M:x...@oss.sgi.com L:x...@oss.sgi.com W:http://oss.sgi.com/projects/xfs -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line unsubscribe linux-kernel in the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Re: [PATCH] update xfs maintainers
On Sat, 9 Nov 2013 06:59:00 +0800 Zhi Yong Wu zwu.ker...@gmail.com wrote: On Sat, Nov 9, 2013 at 6:03 AM, Ben Myers b...@sgi.com wrote: Hey Ric, On Fri, Nov 08, 2013 at 03:50:21PM -0500, Ric Wheeler wrote: On 11/08/2013 03:46 PM, Ben Myers wrote: Hey Christoph, On Fri, Nov 08, 2013 at 11:34:24AM -0800, Christoph Hellwig wrote: On Fri, Nov 08, 2013 at 12:03:37PM -0600, Ben Myers wrote: Mark is replacing Alex as my backup because Alex is really busy at Linaro and asked to be taken off awhile ago. The holiday season is coming up and I fully intend to go off my meds, turn in to Fonzy the bear, and eat my hat. I need someone to watch the shop while I'm off exploring on Mars. I trust Mark to do that because he is totally awesome. Doing this as an unilateral decisions is not something that will win you a fan base. It's posted for review. While we never had anything reassembling a democracy in Linux Kernel development making decisions without even contacting the major contributor is wrong, twice so if the maintainer is a relatively minor contributor to start with. Just because it recent came up elsewhere I'd like to recite the definition from Trond here again: http://lists.linux-foundation.org/pipermail/ksummit-2012-discuss/2012-June/66.html By many of the creative roles enlisted there it's clear that Dave should be the maintainer. He's been the main contributor and chief architect for XFS for many year, while the maintainers came and went at the mercy of SGI. This is not meant to bad mouth either of you as I think you're doing a reasonably good job compared to other maintainers, but at the same time the direction is set by other people that have a much longer involvement with the project, and having them officially in control would help us forward a lot. It would also avoid having to spend considerable resources to train every new generation of SGI maintainer. Coming to and end I would like to maintain Dave Chinner as the primary XFS maintainer for all the work he has done as biggest contributor and architect of XFS since longer than I can remember, and I would love to retain Ben Myers as a co-maintainer for all the good work he has done maintaining and reviewing patches since November 2011. I think we're doing a decent job too. So thanks for that much at least. ;) I would also like to use this post as a public venue to condemn the unilateral smokey backroom decisions about XFS maintainership that SGI is trying to enforce on the community. That really didn't happen Christoph. It's not in my tree or in a pull request. Linus, let me know what you want to do. I do think we're doing a fair job over here, and (geez) I'm just trying to add Mark as my backup since Alex is too busy. I know the RH people want more control, and that's understandable, but they really don't need to replace me to get their code in. Ouch. Thanks, Ben Christoph is not a Red Hat person. Jeff is from Oracle. This is not a Red Hat vs SGI thing, Sorry if my read on that was wrong. Dave simply has earned the right to take on the formal leadership role of maintainer. Then we're gonna need some Reviewed-bys. ;) From: Ben Myers b...@sgi.com xfs: update maintainers Add Dave as maintainer of XFS. Signed-off-by: Ben Myers b...@sgi.com --- MAINTAINERS |2 +- 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-) Index: b/MAINTAINERS === --- a/MAINTAINERS 2013-11-08 15:20:18.935186245 -0600 +++ b/MAINTAINERS 2013-11-08 15:22:50.685245977 -0600 @@ -9387,8 +9387,8 @@ F:drivers/xen/*swiotlb* XFS FILESYSTEM P: Silicon Graphics Inc +M: Dave Chinner dchin...@fromorbit.com Use his personal private mail account? I guess that you should ask for his opinion at first, or it is more appropriate that he submit this patch by himself. Indeed. And does he even want the job? I heard Linus say in a recent interview that being a maintainer is a $#!+ job. Is it really best for the most active developers to be burdened with that extra work? (hmm.. maybe I should add Dave to the Cc here .. but no-one else did so best leave him alone to code in peace). NeilBrown signature.asc Description: PGP signature
