+ others On Tue, Oct 18, 2016 at 06:15:23PM +0200, Richard Weinberger wrote: > On 18.10.2016 17:55, Cyrille Pitchen wrote: > > Le 18/10/2016 à 17:30, Richard Weinberger a écrit : > >> On Tue, Oct 18, 2016 at 5:17 PM, Marek Vasut <ma...@denx.de> wrote: > >>> On 10/18/2016 04:58 PM, Cyrille Pitchen wrote: > >>>> I would like to volunteer as a maintainer for the SPI NOR part of the MTD > >>>> subsystem.
Awesome! > >>>> Over the last months, a significant number of SPI NOR related patches > >>>> have > >>>> been submitted, some of them have been reviewed, but very few have > >>>> finally > >>>> been merged. Hence, the number of pending SPI NOR related patches > >>>> continues > >>>> to increase over the time. Agreed, and sorry. But I guess the delays had the side effect of forcing peoples hands, instead of delaying the inevitable. > >>>> Through my work on SPI NOR memories from many manufacturers over the last > >>>> two years, I've gained a solid understanding of this technology. > >>>> I've already helped by reviewing patches from other contributors on the > >>>> mailing list, and would like to help getting those patches integrated by > >>>> volunteering as a maintainer for this specific area. Agreed. > >>>> Boris Brezillon has already stepped up as a maintainer for the NAND > >>>> sub-subsystem in MTD, and the SPI NOR sub-subsystem could be handled in > >>>> the same way: I would be reviewing patches touching this area, collecting > >>>> them and sending pull requests to Brian Norris. > >> > >> I'd suggest you send pull requests directly to Linus. > >> Same for NAND. I could go with either method I suppose, but I don't personally like the idea of splitting out the various bits of MTD into *completely* independent lines of development. As long as someone (not necessarily me) can manage pulling the sub-subsystems together, I think it would make sense to have 1 PR for Linus for non-UBI/FS MTD changes. > >>>> Signed-off-by: Cyrille Pitchen <cyrille.pitc...@atmel.com> > >>> > >>> Let me know if you need co-maintainer. > >> > >> +1 +1, I think I've not-so-subtly suggested this to Marek previously. > >> While we are here, what about forming a MTD maintainer team? > >> This concept works very well for other subsystems. > >> > > > > I totally agree with you so if Marek and you volunteer as well, your help > > will be precious! > > Well, my SPI-NOR fu is not strong. And UBI/UBIFS keeps me busy. > But if Brian likes the idea of having a MTD maintainer team I'll offer my > help. I think a MTD maintainer team would be good to try, and I think it might help to resolve my above complaint; a maintainer team could help to make sure that everything can be coordinated in one tree + pull request, without adding too many extra points of failure (e.g., so we don't have awesome SPI NOR and NAND trees get bogged down by a slow MTD pull). Random thoughts: Does it make sense to still use infradead.org? We'd need to add a few users there. Trust? I have met most of you in person, but not all, and I don't have signed keys from all of you. I don't know what the best way to get a group-writeable repo with credentials for all of you that we can trust. (FWIW, neither Artem nor David met me, but they saw it fit to grant me infradead.org access ;) ) Coordination: how do we avoid stepping on each other's toes? We'd have to definitely 100% kill 'git push -f' and 'git rebase'. Also, would patchwork help or hurt us here? I think Boris and I have been sort of using it, but it's still got a pretty good backlog (partly real -- i.e., the cause for this thread; and partly artificial, due to accounting). What to do about mtd-utils.git? That's been languishing a bit, and it has no release schedule. Maybe we want a plan for that too. BTW, will anybody be at Linux Plumbers? I plan to be there in a few weeks. And something tells me dwmw2 will be there. Brian
