On 10/18/2016 11:10 PM, David Oberhollenzer wrote: > On 10/18/2016 09:15 PM, Boris Brezillon wrote: >> On Tue, 18 Oct 2016 11:46:51 -0700 >> Brian Norris <computersforpe...@gmail.com> wrote: >> >>> + 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. >> >> Okay, that's all great news! >> You can add my ack after adding Marek as a co-maintainer. >> >>> >>>>>> 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). >> >> I really think we should keep separate trees for the spi-nor and nand >> sub-subsystems, and then do PRs. The question is, how do we agree that >> a PR should be pulled in the MTD tree. >> >> I guess we could have a simple rule like, if it's been reviewed by at >> least X person (I guess 2 is acceptable), then we can merge it. >> >>> >>> 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. >> >> Richard and David had some plans for the mtd-utils repo, and I think >> they already have the permissions to push things to this repo, so the >> best solution is probably to officially promote them maintainers of >> mtd-utils. > I would volunteer to maintain it together with Richard. > > As has been previously mentioned, we did a major overhaul and merged lots > of fixes locally. AFAIK Richard already has push permissions for the mtd-utils > tree on infradead.org, so it should be just a matter of making it official? >
Yes please, I saw some of your patches via Richard and they were nice. -- Best regards, Marek Vasut
