|| ||Linus Torvalds <torvalds-AT-linux-foundation.org>|
|| ||James Bottomley <James.Bottomley-AT-SteelEye.com>|
|| ||Re: [GIT PATCH] final SCSI pieces for the merge window|
|| ||Wed, 24 Oct 2007 08:35:21 -0700 (PDT)|
|| ||David Miller <davem-AT-davemloft.net>, Jeff Garzik <jeff-AT-garzik.org>,
Andrew Morton <akpm-AT-linux-foundation.org>,
Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel-AT-vger.kernel.org>|
On Wed, 24 Oct 2007, James Bottomley wrote:
> OK, so it's no secret that I'm the last of the subsystem maintainers
> whose day job isn't working on the linux kernel. If you want a full
> time person, who did you have in mind?
Quite frankly, at least for me personally, what I would rather have (in
general: this is really not at all SCSI-specific in any way, shape, or
form, and not directed at James!) is a less rigid maintainership
Let's face it, we are *all* likely to be overworked at different times,
and even when not overworked, it's just the fact that people need to take
a breather etc. And there is seldom - if ever - a very strong argument for
having one person per subsystem.
I think git is excellent for trying to spreading the "joy" of
maintainership, but even without something like that, I think it's much
better to try to find people you can trust, rather than strict
maintainership boundaries. For example, Andrew certainly seems to be very
productive as a kernel maintainer, and it has nothing to do with git, and
everything to do with trust.
So I'd rather have less recriminations about "xyz is holding up abc", and
have people more open to just trying to help out even across strict
borders. And I don't mean that in a "two fighting people" kind of way
where there are two or more people who maintain things _despite_ each
other, but more in a
"Hey we know each other, and we trust each other, and no, we won't
guarantee that we always agree, but we can work on things, and if it
turns out that one person merged somethign that the other person
_really_ doesn't like, we'll revert it and/or work it out some other
I've personally always been against _strict_ maintainer lines, so I've
always taken stuff "past" the maintainer anyway (and sometimes maintainers
have complained, because they feel like they "own" their subsystem, and I
either tell them to stuff it, or say "my bad", depending on whether they
had a valid _technical_ complaint or not).
So rather than getting into a pissing match of "ok, who would be the best
maintainer", I'd much *much* prefer to take this as another "we really
don't need or even _want_ to have strict maintainer rules" opportunity.
Now, the most important part here is the trust part. I need to be able to
trust maintainers, but when you have multiple people in the same "box",
those people need to trust each other even more than usual, because you
*are* going to get disagreements. And the only way it can work is if you
acknowledge that disagreements will happen, and that any situation is not
a "my way or the highway" kind of thing - the trust also implies a certain
give and take.
And this really *is* an issue that cuts across subsystem boundaries.
Anybody who thinks that SCSI is "unique" in this kind of issues is sadly
mistaken. We've had the exact same thing come up in every single subsystem
over time, and at every single level of maintainership (from individual
drivers all the way right up to me) over time.
So I *really* don't want to throw any stones in a glass house here. Quite
the reverse. I'd like to get rid of some of the glass, and replace it with
padding. Because you all know we'd all fit better in a padded room than a
Are there any such people that think there s a sufficient mutual trust
with James that you think a blurring of maintainership lines could work
out? Or in any other subsystem, for that matter? Hmm?
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-scsi" in
the body of a message to email@example.com
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
to post comments)