On Mon, 27 Aug 2018 11:26:21 +0200 David Hildenbrand <[email protected]> wrote:
> On 24.08.2018 13:37, Cornelia Huck wrote: > > So, here are some ideas I had on how to improve things: > > > > * Split up maintainership a bit more. For example, split out areas like > > pci for which no public documentation is available; these need to > > have at least one IBM maintainer. Another candidate would maybe be > > the cpu model. > > I could take care of the latter. But it usually goes hand in hand with > KVM changes (or core s390x changes for migration), so I am not sure if > splitting the cpu model out makes that much sense after all. To me, it > somehow feels "s390x core". I'll defer to your judgment here :) > > > * On a related note, more maintainers from IBM would be nice :) For > > example, for vfio-ccw, where I'm the only maintainer... Some R: > > entries would not hurt, either. > > * More trees to pull from. Of course, not every area needs a dedicated > > tree (that would become silly pretty quickly), but for example a tcg > > tree would be nice. I can still pick individual patches if a pull > > request would be overkill. > > I can take care of that for TCG (including picking + sending pull requests). Cool, thank you. I'll do a pull request before my vacation with the current model, so we could switch after that. > > > * I'd also like to have a designated backup for the overall > > maintainership, especially for when I'm on vacation (like the first > > two weeks of September, just to let you know :) or otherwise > > unavailable, but also for sanity. Likely needs to be a non-IBMer due > > to the tcg problem. > > Either Thomas or I could do that. I will be on vacation the first two > weeks of September, too ;) Thomas, interested? Maybe both of you? I doubt we'll be on vacation during the same time period every time ;) > > > * A more predictable s390-next would be nice. Maybe have it > > (semi-)automatically created out of the different trees, on top of > > current master? I would start to apply patches on a new branch that > > feeds into s390-next rather than on s390-next directly, then. > > Is there any fancy mechanism out there with which we can easily build > something like that (automatic merging like e.g. linux-next does)? I can dig around whether there are some published scripts for that. What we probably need is: - a list of branches to merge - a script that tries to merge them one by one and then pushes the result out We'll probably be able to semi-automate this, but I doubt that it is possible to do that fully automatically (conflict resolution etc.) AFAIK, linux-next is also done semi-automatically (but also on a way different scale :) > > > * Do something about (semi-)consolidated, (semi-)automatic testing. > > Like hooking into Travis (or something similar), sharing test setups, > > and enabling tests to be run on a range of platforms (including very > > recent ones). Testing is probably a large topic on its own, though. > > Sounds interesting to me. Especially building all different kinds of > combinations + e.g. running kvm-unit-tests / booting a simple distro. Yes, something like that. Especially on different hardware.
