Re: stalled again

[Christoph Hellwig]

Hi Doug,

not having any maintainer available for an extended time is a problem,
and we actually had long discussions about that at kernel summit, with
a clear hint with a cluebat from Linus that he'd prefer maintainer
teams.  So I'd really love to know who was so ead set aginst them.

I personally don't really care if there is a real team (active/active)
or just a standby (active/passive), but I think we really need a
coherent tree of pending patches to avoid last minute rebases due to
conflicts, as well as some feedback for submitters.

I'd be happy to volunteer to collect all patches that were properly
review into a queue for you to consider to at least sort out these
mechanics, although I'd be even more happy if someone who has a longer
experience with the subsystem would volunteer instead.
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-rdma" in
the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html

Re: stalled again

[Jason Gunthorpe]

On Wed, Dec 02, 2015 at 04:29:27AM -0800, Christoph Hellwig wrote:
> Maybe we need more co-maintainers if the two current maintainers can't
> handle the workload?

Doug is the only maintainer. The idea of co-maintainers was rejected
by some parties.

Don't be confused, the other 'M' people in the MAINTAINERS file are
really doing the 'R' job.

If Doug wasn't able to become full time on this project we should
probably revisit that.

Jason
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-rdma" in
the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html

Re: stalled again

[Doug Ledford]

On 12/02/2015 01:42 PM, Jason Gunthorpe wrote:
> On Wed, Dec 02, 2015 at 04:29:27AM -0800, Christoph Hellwig wrote:
>> Maybe we need more co-maintainers if the two current maintainers can't
>> handle the workload?
> 
> Doug is the only maintainer. The idea of co-maintainers was rejected
> by some parties.
> 
> Don't be confused, the other 'M' people in the MAINTAINERS file are
> really doing the 'R' job.

For certain of those, I defer to their opinion on any patches.  For
example, I deferred to Sean's opinion on the recent changes to the
rdma_cm in regards to it no longer being sync versus async due to the
RoCE changes.

> If Doug wasn't able to become full time on this project we should
> probably revisit that.

I'm more or less full time.  There is still some lingering work on my
part in terms of helping out my replacements internally come fully up to
speed.  But even full time I don't sit around reading mail and slurping
up patches all day, there are other aspects to what I do in my role now.

However, that's neither here nor there.  The real issue for the last
month plus has been the paternity leave.  Things still haven't settled
fully down at home and I'm simply horribly behind.

-- 
Doug Ledford 
  GPG KeyID: 0E572FDD




signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature

Re: stalled again

[Christoph Hellwig]

On Tue, Dec 01, 2015 at 06:30:28PM +0200, Or Gerlitz wrote:
> Any reason on earth not to rebase your tree (== create new branch, move
> their the for-next tag) after an rc1 is out? how long does this take?

I'm not too worried about the base as there doesn't seem to be anything
pending for 4.5-rc right now.  But the fact that nothing is pending
worries me a bit given that a lot of work is out there on the list and
even reviewed.

Maybe we need more co-maintainers if the two current maintainers can't
handle the workload?
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-rdma" in
the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html

Re: stalled again

[Christoph Lameter]

On Tue, 1 Dec 2015, Or Gerlitz wrote:

> We're against into this... upstream is on 4.4-rc3 while your latest branch in
> kernel.org (the one that carries thefor-next tag) is rebased to 4.3-rc3...

Seems that everything was merged? So you can directly use 4.4-rc1
until he comes up with a for-next for 4.5.

> --> our internal build and review systems for patches to linux-rdma can'tmake
> any use of your tree. People here have to rebase their work against their own
> clones of Linus tree and can't work with our internal Gerrit rdma-next branch,
> etc, etc.

AFACIT The primary use for the next-trees is testing and merging. You
should be basing your work on 4.4-rc1 and all the patches you are carrying
need to apply to 4.4-rc1 cleanly. Unless you depend on functionality that
was added for the next merge cycle of course. But since there is no tree
yet nothing was added so there is nothing there for you to rely on.

Please do not base patches by default on -next tree's unless there is a
good reason for it. If you do otherwise the code base will change too
frequently. If the maintainer decides to drop a certain patchset your
patches may no longer apply cleanly.




--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-rdma" in
the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html

Re: stalled again

[Greg Kroah-Hartman]

On Tue, Dec 01, 2015 at 06:30:28PM +0200, Or Gerlitz wrote:
> Doug,
> 
> We're against into this... upstream is on 4.4-rc3 while your latest branch
> in kernel.org (the one that carries thefor-next tag) is rebased to
> 4.3-rc3...
> 
> --> our internal build and review systems for patches to linux-rdma
> can'tmake any use of your tree. People here have to rebase their work
> against their own clones of Linus tree and can't work with our internal
> Gerrit rdma-next branch, etc, etc.

Why is your broken internal development process a concern to the kernel
community in general?

> We have to work in a very inefficient manner.

Then stop doing foolish things :)

> Any reason on earth not to rebase your tree (== create new branch, move
> their the for-next tag) after an rc1 is out? how long does this take?

Why does that matter?  You have access to everything, base your patches
on a -rc release.

And why are you concerning me with linux-rdma things, come on, you all
really don't want to drag me into this again...

thanks,

greg k-h
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-rdma" in
the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html

stalled again

[Or Gerlitz]

Doug,

We're against into this... upstream is on 4.4-rc3 while your latest 
branch in kernel.org (the one that carries thefor-next tag) is rebased 
to 4.3-rc3...


--> our internal build and review systems for patches to linux-rdma 
can'tmake any use of your tree. People here have to rebase their work 
against their own clones of Linus tree and can't work with our internal 
Gerrit rdma-next branch, etc, etc.


We have to work in a very inefficient manner.

Any reason on earth not to rebase your tree (== create new branch, move 
their the for-next tag) after an rc1 is out? how long does this take?


Or.
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-rdma" in
the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html