From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Andrew Morton Subject: Re: [GIT PATCH] final SCSI pieces for the merge window Date: Wed, 24 Oct 2007 12:09:14 -0700 Message-ID: <20071024120914.180682a6.akpm@linux-foundation.org> References: <471E6313.1040704@garzik.org> <1193174424.3434.3.camel@localhost.localdomain> <471E707B.1020505@garzik.org> <20071023.153635.21595587.davem@davemloft.net> <1193232490.3396.10.camel@localhost.localdomain> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Return-path: Received: from smtp2.linux-foundation.org ([207.189.120.14]:53257 "EHLO smtp2.linux-foundation.org" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1753155AbXJXTJc (ORCPT ); Wed, 24 Oct 2007 15:09:32 -0400 In-Reply-To: Sender: linux-scsi-owner@vger.kernel.org List-Id: linux-scsi@vger.kernel.org To: Linus Torvalds Cc: James Bottomley , David Miller , Jeff Garzik , linux-scsi@vger.kernel.org, Linux Kernel Mailing List On Wed, 24 Oct 2007 08:35:21 -0700 (PDT) Linus Torvalds wrote: > On Wed, 24 Oct 2007, James Bottomley wrote: > > > > OK, so it's no secret that I'm the last of the subsystem maintainers > > whose day job isn't working on the linux kernel. If you want a full > > time person, who did you have in mind? > > Quite frankly, at least for me personally, what I would rather have (in > general: this is really not at all SCSI-specific in any way, shape, or > form, and not directed at James!) is a less rigid maintainership > structure. > > Let's face it, we are *all* likely to be overworked at different times, > and even when not overworked, it's just the fact that people need to take > a breather etc. And there is seldom - if ever - a very strong argument for > having one person per subsystem. Am OK with all of that, but with a rider. It would make my life even more miserable if there was a (say) git-scsi-tweedledee and a git-scsi-tweedledum. We already have too much out-of-scope code turning up in the git trees and having two trees explicitly modifying the same subsystem would hurt. It's also bad from an engineering POV: there's a decent chance that when combined, they just won't work. So Tweedledee and Tweedledum should both commit to the same tree, please.