[PATCH] MAINTAINERS: Update MSM maintainers

[PATCH] MAINTAINERS: Update MSM maintainers

[David Brown]

Remove Bryan Huntsman and Daniel Walker from the MSM maintainer list.

Signed-off-by: David Brown <davidb@codeaurora.org>
---
 MAINTAINERS |    2 --
 1 files changed, 0 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)

diff --git a/MAINTAINERS b/MAINTAINERS
index 6f99e12..c6c6f55 100644
--- a/MAINTAINERS
+++ b/MAINTAINERS
@@ -885,8 +885,6 @@ S:	Supported
 
 ARM/QUALCOMM MSM MACHINE SUPPORT
 M:	David Brown <davidb@codeaurora.org>
-M:	Daniel Walker <dwalker@fifo99.com>
-M:	Bryan Huntsman <bryanh@codeaurora.org>
 L:	linux-arm-msm@vger.kernel.org
 F:	arch/arm/mach-msm/
 F:	drivers/video/msm/
-- 
Sent by an employee of the Qualcomm Innovation Center, Inc.
The Qualcomm Innovation Center, Inc. is a member of the Code Aurora Forum.

[PATCH] MAINTAINERS: Update MSM maintainers

[David Brown]

Remove Bryan Huntsman and Daniel Walker from the MSM maintainer list.

Signed-off-by: David Brown <davidb@codeaurora.org>
---
 MAINTAINERS |    2 --
 1 files changed, 0 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)

diff --git a/MAINTAINERS b/MAINTAINERS
index 6f99e12..c6c6f55 100644
--- a/MAINTAINERS
+++ b/MAINTAINERS
@@ -885,8 +885,6 @@ S:	Supported
 
 ARM/QUALCOMM MSM MACHINE SUPPORT
 M:	David Brown <davidb@codeaurora.org>
-M:	Daniel Walker <dwalker@fifo99.com>
-M:	Bryan Huntsman <bryanh@codeaurora.org>
 L:	linux-arm-msm at vger.kernel.org
 F:	arch/arm/mach-msm/
 F:	drivers/video/msm/
-- 
Sent by an employee of the Qualcomm Innovation Center, Inc.
The Qualcomm Innovation Center, Inc. is a member of the Code Aurora Forum.

Re: [PATCH] MAINTAINERS: Update MSM maintainers

[Daniel Walker]

On Tue, 2011-02-22 at 16:03 -0800, David Brown wrote:
> Remove Bryan Huntsman and Daniel Walker from the MSM maintainer list.
> 

No.. I don't sign off on this.. Please ignore this Linus.

Daniel

[PATCH] MAINTAINERS: Update MSM maintainers

[Daniel Walker]

On Tue, 2011-02-22 at 16:03 -0800, David Brown wrote:
> Remove Bryan Huntsman and Daniel Walker from the MSM maintainer list.
> 

No.. I don't sign off on this.. Please ignore this Linus.

Daniel

Re: [PATCH] MAINTAINERS: Update MSM maintainers

[Linus Torvalds]

On Tue, Feb 22, 2011 at 4:19 PM, Daniel Walker <dwalker@fifo99.com> wrote:
> On Tue, 2011-02-22 at 16:03 -0800, David Brown wrote:
>> Remove Bryan Huntsman and Daniel Walker from the MSM maintainer list.
>>
>
> No.. I don't sign off on this.. Please ignore this Linus.

Guys, you need to sort out your differences here..

                        Linus

[PATCH] MAINTAINERS: Update MSM maintainers

[Linus Torvalds]

On Tue, Feb 22, 2011 at 4:19 PM, Daniel Walker <dwalker@fifo99.com> wrote:
> On Tue, 2011-02-22 at 16:03 -0800, David Brown wrote:
>> Remove Bryan Huntsman and Daniel Walker from the MSM maintainer list.
>>
>
> No.. I don't sign off on this.. Please ignore this Linus.

Guys, you need to sort out your differences here..

                        Linus

Re: [PATCH] MAINTAINERS: Update MSM maintainers

[Bryan Huntsman]

On 02/22/2011 05:12 PM, Linus Torvalds wrote:
> On Tue, Feb 22, 2011 at 4:19 PM, Daniel Walker <dwalker@fifo99.com> wrote:
>> On Tue, 2011-02-22 at 16:03 -0800, David Brown wrote:
>>> Remove Bryan Huntsman and Daniel Walker from the MSM maintainer list.
>>>
>>
>> No.. I don't sign off on this.. Please ignore this Linus.
> 
> Guys, you need to sort out your differences here..
> 
>                         Linus

Daniel, let's do what Linus is asking and figure this out.  What is your
intention here?  Going forward, David Brown is in the best position to
handle MSM maintenance since he has direct access to all past, current,
and future MSM devices as well as all the HW and SW experts at Qualcomm.
In that spirit, I think it's entirely appropriate for both you and I to
step back and let David handle this role so that there is one consistent
and clear voice for MSM.

- Bryan

-- 
Sent by an employee of the Qualcomm Innovation Center, Inc.
The Qualcomm Innovation Center, Inc. is a member of the Code Aurora Forum.

[PATCH] MAINTAINERS: Update MSM maintainers

[Bryan Huntsman]

On 02/22/2011 05:12 PM, Linus Torvalds wrote:
> On Tue, Feb 22, 2011 at 4:19 PM, Daniel Walker <dwalker@fifo99.com> wrote:
>> On Tue, 2011-02-22 at 16:03 -0800, David Brown wrote:
>>> Remove Bryan Huntsman and Daniel Walker from the MSM maintainer list.
>>>
>>
>> No.. I don't sign off on this.. Please ignore this Linus.
> 
> Guys, you need to sort out your differences here..
> 
>                         Linus

Daniel, let's do what Linus is asking and figure this out.  What is your
intention here?  Going forward, David Brown is in the best position to
handle MSM maintenance since he has direct access to all past, current,
and future MSM devices as well as all the HW and SW experts at Qualcomm.
In that spirit, I think it's entirely appropriate for both you and I to
step back and let David handle this role so that there is one consistent
and clear voice for MSM.

- Bryan

-- 
Sent by an employee of the Qualcomm Innovation Center, Inc.
The Qualcomm Innovation Center, Inc. is a member of the Code Aurora Forum.

Re: [PATCH] MAINTAINERS: Update MSM maintainers

[Daniel Walker]

On Wed, 2011-02-23 at 13:26 -0800, Bryan Huntsman wrote:
> On 02/22/2011 05:12 PM, Linus Torvalds wrote:
> > On Tue, Feb 22, 2011 at 4:19 PM, Daniel Walker <dwalker@fifo99.com> wrote:
> >> On Tue, 2011-02-22 at 16:03 -0800, David Brown wrote:
> >>> Remove Bryan Huntsman and Daniel Walker from the MSM maintainer list.
> >>>
> >>
> >> No.. I don't sign off on this.. Please ignore this Linus.
> > 
> > Guys, you need to sort out your differences here..
> > 
> >                         Linus
> 
> Daniel, let's do what Linus is asking and figure this out.  What is your
> intention here?  Going forward, David Brown is in the best position to
> handle MSM maintenance since he has direct access to all past, current,
> and future MSM devices as well as all the HW and SW experts at Qualcomm.
> In that spirit, I think it's entirely appropriate for both you and I to
> step back and let David handle this role so that there is one consistent
> and clear voice for MSM.

There's nothing really to figure out. I don't feel like you and David
can do the job alone. My intentions are just to make sure that you don't
mess with my targets, and that you do the right thing by the community.

Daniel

[PATCH] MAINTAINERS: Update MSM maintainers

[Daniel Walker]

On Wed, 2011-02-23 at 13:26 -0800, Bryan Huntsman wrote:
> On 02/22/2011 05:12 PM, Linus Torvalds wrote:
> > On Tue, Feb 22, 2011 at 4:19 PM, Daniel Walker <dwalker@fifo99.com> wrote:
> >> On Tue, 2011-02-22 at 16:03 -0800, David Brown wrote:
> >>> Remove Bryan Huntsman and Daniel Walker from the MSM maintainer list.
> >>>
> >>
> >> No.. I don't sign off on this.. Please ignore this Linus.
> > 
> > Guys, you need to sort out your differences here..
> > 
> >                         Linus
> 
> Daniel, let's do what Linus is asking and figure this out.  What is your
> intention here?  Going forward, David Brown is in the best position to
> handle MSM maintenance since he has direct access to all past, current,
> and future MSM devices as well as all the HW and SW experts at Qualcomm.
> In that spirit, I think it's entirely appropriate for both you and I to
> step back and let David handle this role so that there is one consistent
> and clear voice for MSM.

There's nothing really to figure out. I don't feel like you and David
can do the job alone. My intentions are just to make sure that you don't
mess with my targets, and that you do the right thing by the community.

Daniel

Re: [PATCH] MAINTAINERS: Update MSM maintainers

[Bryan Huntsman]

On 02/23/2011 06:02 PM, Daniel Walker wrote:

> There's nothing really to figure out. I don't feel like you and David
> can do the job alone. My intentions are just to make sure that you don't
> mess with my targets, and that you do the right thing by the community.
> 
> Daniel

I'd like to address the points you mention.  I disagree with your
personal feelings about David's suitability for the task.  David has
been involved with Linux MSM development for it's entire history.  This
is important because he knows the HW behavior and SW designs for all the
MSM chips and drivers.  This gives him the context to recognize
potentially subtle interactions and behavioral issues.  I hope you would
agree that this type of expertise and insight is valuable for any
maintainer to have.  Regarding his ability to do this on his own, public
maintainership of the MSM architecture is David's primary
responsibility.  I agree that this is a somewhat new role for him, but
maintainers have to start somewhere.  From what I've seen so far, David
is showing the proper maturity and judgement expected from a
maintainer.  As an example, I would point to David's handling of Arnd's
comments in this thread; https://lkml.org/lkml/2010/12/16/434.  This
caused a considerable amount re-work and testing for us but David made
sure that it was addressed and resolved correctly and in a timely manner.

For your second point, would you please explain how we're "messing with
your targets"?  I understand that you have a personal interest in
getting G1 and NexusOne support into the kernel.  This is a great goal
and I would encourage you to continue with this effort.  We're happy to
accept any patches you submit in this regard.  Additionally, I think you
would provide value to the MSM maintainer and the community by testing
patches on these targets once there is support for them in the kernel.
However, I would like to point out that the MSM architecture includes
much more that just G1 or NexusOne.  By my last last count, there were
about 47 MSM machines registered.

For your last point, would you please explain why it falls to you to
"make sure ... that we do the right thing by the community"?  We are
trying very hard to become good citizens in the Linux kernel development
community.  This is not always an easy thing to do.  The issues with SOC
vendors are well known.  I think the fact that one of our key MSM
developers, David Brown, has stepped up to handle public maintainership
of the MSM architecture, as well as the fact that many of our developers
are now submitting patches upstream, demonstrates that we are trying to
do the right thing.  I'm sure there are lots of areas where we could
improve and many things we could do better.  This is a learning process
for many of us.  If you have specific examples of things that should be
fixed or could be done better, please let us know.  That kind of
feedback is why we're participating and sending patches out for public
review in the first place.  If you have specific examples of us doing
wrong by the community please share those as well.  To my knowledge, no
such issues have been raised by anyone in the community so far.

Finally, it's my hope that you and Linux community will help and support
David as the MSM maintainer by reviewing MSM-related patches and
pointing out areas where the MSM architecture could be improved.  In
this spirit, I'm asking you to please acknowledge the patch that started
this email chain.  Please let the MSM developers take full
responsibility for the MSM architecture.  That is, after all, what the
community typically asks from SOC vendors.  Thanks.

- Bryan

-- 
Sent by an employee of the Qualcomm Innovation Center, Inc.
The Qualcomm Innovation Center, Inc. is a member of the Code Aurora Forum.

[PATCH] MAINTAINERS: Update MSM maintainers

[Bryan Huntsman]

On 02/23/2011 06:02 PM, Daniel Walker wrote:

> There's nothing really to figure out. I don't feel like you and David
> can do the job alone. My intentions are just to make sure that you don't
> mess with my targets, and that you do the right thing by the community.
> 
> Daniel

I'd like to address the points you mention.  I disagree with your
personal feelings about David's suitability for the task.  David has
been involved with Linux MSM development for it's entire history.  This
is important because he knows the HW behavior and SW designs for all the
MSM chips and drivers.  This gives him the context to recognize
potentially subtle interactions and behavioral issues.  I hope you would
agree that this type of expertise and insight is valuable for any
maintainer to have.  Regarding his ability to do this on his own, public
maintainership of the MSM architecture is David's primary
responsibility.  I agree that this is a somewhat new role for him, but
maintainers have to start somewhere.  From what I've seen so far, David
is showing the proper maturity and judgement expected from a
maintainer.  As an example, I would point to David's handling of Arnd's
comments in this thread; https://lkml.org/lkml/2010/12/16/434.  This
caused a considerable amount re-work and testing for us but David made
sure that it was addressed and resolved correctly and in a timely manner.

For your second point, would you please explain how we're "messing with
your targets"?  I understand that you have a personal interest in
getting G1 and NexusOne support into the kernel.  This is a great goal
and I would encourage you to continue with this effort.  We're happy to
accept any patches you submit in this regard.  Additionally, I think you
would provide value to the MSM maintainer and the community by testing
patches on these targets once there is support for them in the kernel.
However, I would like to point out that the MSM architecture includes
much more that just G1 or NexusOne.  By my last last count, there were
about 47 MSM machines registered.

For your last point, would you please explain why it falls to you to
"make sure ... that we do the right thing by the community"?  We are
trying very hard to become good citizens in the Linux kernel development
community.  This is not always an easy thing to do.  The issues with SOC
vendors are well known.  I think the fact that one of our key MSM
developers, David Brown, has stepped up to handle public maintainership
of the MSM architecture, as well as the fact that many of our developers
are now submitting patches upstream, demonstrates that we are trying to
do the right thing.  I'm sure there are lots of areas where we could
improve and many things we could do better.  This is a learning process
for many of us.  If you have specific examples of things that should be
fixed or could be done better, please let us know.  That kind of
feedback is why we're participating and sending patches out for public
review in the first place.  If you have specific examples of us doing
wrong by the community please share those as well.  To my knowledge, no
such issues have been raised by anyone in the community so far.

Finally, it's my hope that you and Linux community will help and support
David as the MSM maintainer by reviewing MSM-related patches and
pointing out areas where the MSM architecture could be improved.  In
this spirit, I'm asking you to please acknowledge the patch that started
this email chain.  Please let the MSM developers take full
responsibility for the MSM architecture.  That is, after all, what the
community typically asks from SOC vendors.  Thanks.

- Bryan

-- 
Sent by an employee of the Qualcomm Innovation Center, Inc.
The Qualcomm Innovation Center, Inc. is a member of the Code Aurora Forum.

Re: [PATCH] MAINTAINERS: Update MSM maintainers

[Linus Torvalds]

On Thu, Feb 24, 2011 at 1:29 PM, Bryan Huntsman <bryanh@codeaurora.org> wrote:
>
>         Please let the MSM developers take full
> responsibility for the MSM architecture.  That is, after all, what the
> community typically asks from SOC vendors.

Actually, "the community" (not that there really is any such cohesive
thing) generally asks that vendors be "involved". Not that vendors be
"exclusively in control". There's a big difference.

So what I personally find distasteful is how there's apparently some
entity that argues that _others_ should be removed from the
maintainership. Why would that be the case? This kind of exclusivity
argument is bad. Maintainers can step down, but having others remove
maintainership seems dubious at best.

So get your politics sorted out, guys.

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

Re: [PATCH] MAINTAINERS: Update MSM maintainers

[Linus Torvalds]

On Thu, Feb 24, 2011 at 1:29 PM, Bryan Huntsman <bryanh@codeaurora.org> wrote:
>
>         Please let the MSM developers take full
> responsibility for the MSM architecture.  That is, after all, what the
> community typically asks from SOC vendors.

Actually, "the community" (not that there really is any such cohesive
thing) generally asks that vendors be "involved". Not that vendors be
"exclusively in control". There's a big difference.

So what I personally find distasteful is how there's apparently some
entity that argues that _others_ should be removed from the
maintainership. Why would that be the case? This kind of exclusivity
argument is bad. Maintainers can step down, but having others remove
maintainership seems dubious at best.

So get your politics sorted out, guys.

                               Linus

[PATCH] MAINTAINERS: Update MSM maintainers

[Linus Torvalds]

On Thu, Feb 24, 2011 at 1:29 PM, Bryan Huntsman <bryanh@codeaurora.org> wrote:
>
>        ?Please let the MSM developers take full
> responsibility for the MSM architecture. ?That is, after all, what the
> community typically asks from SOC vendors.

Actually, "the community" (not that there really is any such cohesive
thing) generally asks that vendors be "involved". Not that vendors be
"exclusively in control". There's a big difference.

So what I personally find distasteful is how there's apparently some
entity that argues that _others_ should be removed from the
maintainership. Why would that be the case? This kind of exclusivity
argument is bad. Maintainers can step down, but having others remove
maintainership seems dubious at best.

So get your politics sorted out, guys.

                               Linus

Re: [PATCH] MAINTAINERS: Update MSM maintainers

[Pavel Machek]

Hi!

> > There's nothing really to figure out. I don't feel like you and David
> > can do the job alone. My intentions are just to make sure that you don't
> > mess with my targets, and that you do the right thing by the community.
> > 
> > Daniel
> 
> I'd like to address the points you mention.  I disagree with your
> personal feelings about David's suitability for the task.  David has
> been involved with Linux MSM development for it's entire history.

So he's great developer.

> responsibility.  I agree that this is a somewhat new role for him, but
> maintainers have to start somewhere.  From what I've seen so far, David
> is showing the proper maturity and judgement expected from a
> maintainer.  As an example, I would point to David's handling of
> Arnd's

So you agree dwalker has more experience as maintainer, and cite an
example where dbrown handled things ok.

But you know this patch was great counterexample. Trying to remove
someone from mainainers without asking them first is very very
impolite...
-- 
(english) http://www.livejournal.com/~pavelmachek
(cesky, pictures) http://atrey.karlin.mff.cuni.cz/~pavel/picture/horses/blog.html

[PATCH] MAINTAINERS: Update MSM maintainers

[Pavel Machek]

Hi!

> > There's nothing really to figure out. I don't feel like you and David
> > can do the job alone. My intentions are just to make sure that you don't
> > mess with my targets, and that you do the right thing by the community.
> > 
> > Daniel
> 
> I'd like to address the points you mention.  I disagree with your
> personal feelings about David's suitability for the task.  David has
> been involved with Linux MSM development for it's entire history.

So he's great developer.

> responsibility.  I agree that this is a somewhat new role for him, but
> maintainers have to start somewhere.  From what I've seen so far, David
> is showing the proper maturity and judgement expected from a
> maintainer.  As an example, I would point to David's handling of
> Arnd's

So you agree dwalker has more experience as maintainer, and cite an
example where dbrown handled things ok.

But you know this patch was great counterexample. Trying to remove
someone from mainainers without asking them first is very very
impolite...
-- 
(english) http://www.livejournal.com/~pavelmachek
(cesky, pictures) http://atrey.karlin.mff.cuni.cz/~pavel/picture/horses/blog.html

Re: [PATCH] MAINTAINERS: Update MSM maintainers

[David Brown]

On Fri, Mar 04 2011, Pavel Machek wrote:

> But you know this patch was great counterexample. Trying to remove
> someone from mainainers without asking them first is very very
> impolite...

Yeah, I screwed up.  Hopefully my future screwups will be more
technical, which are usually easier to fix.

David

-- 
Sent by an employee of the Qualcomm Innovation Center, Inc.
The Qualcomm Innovation Center, Inc. is a member of the Code Aurora Forum.

[PATCH] MAINTAINERS: Update MSM maintainers

[David Brown]

On Fri, Mar 04 2011, Pavel Machek wrote:

> But you know this patch was great counterexample. Trying to remove
> someone from mainainers without asking them first is very very
> impolite...

Yeah, I screwed up.  Hopefully my future screwups will be more
technical, which are usually easier to fix.

David

-- 
Sent by an employee of the Qualcomm Innovation Center, Inc.
The Qualcomm Innovation Center, Inc. is a member of the Code Aurora Forum.

Re: [PATCH] MAINTAINERS: Update MSM maintainers

[Bryan Huntsman]

On 02/22/2011 04:03 PM, David Brown wrote:
> Remove Bryan Huntsman and Daniel Walker from the MSM maintainer list.
> 
> Signed-off-by: David Brown <davidb@codeaurora.org>
> ---
>  MAINTAINERS |    2 --
>  1 files changed, 0 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)
> 
> diff --git a/MAINTAINERS b/MAINTAINERS
> index 6f99e12..c6c6f55 100644
> --- a/MAINTAINERS
> +++ b/MAINTAINERS
> @@ -885,8 +885,6 @@ S:	Supported
>  
>  ARM/QUALCOMM MSM MACHINE SUPPORT
>  M:	David Brown <davidb@codeaurora.org>
> -M:	Daniel Walker <dwalker@fifo99.com>
> -M:	Bryan Huntsman <bryanh@codeaurora.org>
>  L:	linux-arm-msm@vger.kernel.org
>  F:	arch/arm/mach-msm/
>  F:	drivers/video/msm/

Acked-by: Bryan Huntsman <bryanh@codeaurora.org>

-- 
Sent by an employee of the Qualcomm Innovation Center, Inc.
The Qualcomm Innovation Center, Inc. is a member of the Code Aurora Forum.

[PATCH] MAINTAINERS: Update MSM maintainers

[Bryan Huntsman]

On 02/22/2011 04:03 PM, David Brown wrote:
> Remove Bryan Huntsman and Daniel Walker from the MSM maintainer list.
> 
> Signed-off-by: David Brown <davidb@codeaurora.org>
> ---
>  MAINTAINERS |    2 --
>  1 files changed, 0 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)
> 
> diff --git a/MAINTAINERS b/MAINTAINERS
> index 6f99e12..c6c6f55 100644
> --- a/MAINTAINERS
> +++ b/MAINTAINERS
> @@ -885,8 +885,6 @@ S:	Supported
>  
>  ARM/QUALCOMM MSM MACHINE SUPPORT
>  M:	David Brown <davidb@codeaurora.org>
> -M:	Daniel Walker <dwalker@fifo99.com>
> -M:	Bryan Huntsman <bryanh@codeaurora.org>
>  L:	linux-arm-msm at vger.kernel.org
>  F:	arch/arm/mach-msm/
>  F:	drivers/video/msm/

Acked-by: Bryan Huntsman <bryanh@codeaurora.org>

-- 
Sent by an employee of the Qualcomm Innovation Center, Inc.
The Qualcomm Innovation Center, Inc. is a member of the Code Aurora Forum.