[Ksummit-discuss] [CORE TOPIC] (group) maintainership models

[Daniel Vetter]

On Fri, Jul 22, 2016 at 10:02 PM, Darren Hart <dvhart at infradead.org> wrote:
> On Wed, Jul 20, 2016 at 02:11:58PM +0200, Daniel Vetter wrote:
>> In my very first KS I found the maintainership model presentations
>> (x86-tip & armsoc) rather interesting. And last year we've had an
>> ad-hoc discussion about group maintainership again. I think drm&i915
>> would be an interesting case since over the past year I've done some
>> changes which are at the edge of what's common in the kernel, and it
>> seems to work (at least for us) fairly well. I discussed this a bit
>> with a few folks at ELC San Diego too.
>>
>> Short summary: i915 has now a two-level maintenance model with 2
>> maintainers (who take the blame) and 15 people who can push patches.
>> In a way a rather big group, but not so big that people don't all know
>> each another any more personally. We have some detailed docs about the
>> patch flow and expectations:
>>
>> https://01.org/linuxgraphics/gfx-docs/maintainer-tools/drm-intel.html
>>
>> and about the dim tool used to support this all
>>
>> https://01.org/linuxgraphics/gfx-docs/maintainer-tools/dim.html
>>
>> But I think the more interesting bits are why I decided to try this
>> out, what I hoped would happen, what I feared might happen. And with 1
>> year of experience, what actually happens and what I think is needed
>> to make this work and an actual benefit over more traditional
>> maintainer models. And of course I'd like to compare notes with other
>> group maintainers.
>
> I'd be interested in the discussion. I think having it would also serve to
> minimize the differences between policies across subsystems (which is a common
> topic people have raised with me).

Not sure I'm helping, since I think this new i915 model makes the
spread in different policies worse ;-) What do you have in mind here?
-Daniel
-- 
Daniel Vetter
Software Engineer, Intel Corporation
+41 (0) 79 365 57 48 - http://blog.ffwll.ch