Re: [PATCH 01/10] alsa_stream: port changes made on xawtv3

[Mauro Carvalho Chehab <mchehab@redhat.com>]

Em 06-09-2011 15:41, Devin Heitmueller escreveu:
> On Tue, Sep 6, 2011 at 2:19 PM, Hans de Goede <hdegoede@redhat.com> wrote:
>> I think that what should be done is contact the debian / ubuntu maintainers,
>> get any interesting fixes they have which the kl version misses merged,
>> and then just declare the kl version as being the new official upstream
>> (with the blessing of the debian / ubuntu guys, and if possible also
>> with the blessing of the original authors).
> 
> It has always been my intention to get the Debian/Ubuntu patches
> merged (as well as other distros).  My thoughts behind renaming were
> oriented around the notion that that there are more distros out there
> than just Fedora/Ubuntu/Debian, but that may be something that isn't
> really a concern.  Also, I had no idea whether the distros would
> actually switch over to the Kernel Labs version as the official
> upstream source, so providing it under a different name would in
> theory allow both packages to be available in parallel.
> 
> From a practical standpoint, the Ubuntu folks have the original tvtime
> tarball and all their changes in one patch, which is clearly a bunch
> of patches that are mashed together probably in their build system. I
> need to reach out to them to find where they have an actual SCM tree
> or the individual patches.  They've got a bunch of patches which would
> be good to get into a single tree (autobuild fixes, cross-compilation,
> locale updates, etc).

Yeah, it seems interesting. Maybe we can get something from this place:
	http://packages.qa.debian.org/t/tvtime.html

The maintainer there seems to be: 
	http://qa.debian.org/developer.php?login=bartm@debian.org

>> This would require kl git to be open to others for pushing, or we
>> could move the tree to git.linuxtv.org (which I assume may be
>> easier then for you to make the necessary changes to give
>> others push rights on kl.org).
> 
> Kernel Labs has never really had any real interest in "owning" tvtime.
>  I just setup the hg tree in an effort to get all the distro patches
> in one place and have something that builds against current kernels
> (and on which I can add improvements/fixes without users having to
> deal with patches).  At the time there was also nobody who clearly had
> the desire to serve as an official maintainer.
> 
> In the long term I have no real issue with the LinuxTV group being the
> official maintainer of record.  I've got lots of ideas and things I
> would like to do to improve tvtime, but in practice I've done a pretty
> crappy job of maintaining the source (merging patches, etc) at this
> point.

Putting it on a common place and giving permissions to a group of people
is interesting, as none of us are focused on userspace, so we all
have a very limited amount of time for dealing with userspace applications.

By giving commit rights to a group of developers, it ends that more 
developers will contribute, speeding up the development. 

That was what happened with v4l-utils and, on a minor scale, with xawtv3.

If you're ok with that, I can set a tvtime git repository at LinuxTV, 
cloning the tree I've created there already (it is a pure conversion
of your tree from mercurial into git, if I remove the patches I've
done so far from your clone), giving you the ownership of the new tree,
and marking it as a shared repository.

I have already all set there to allow shared access to the repository
(in opposite to -hg, git works really cool with shared repositories).

We can later add permissions to the developers interested on helping
the tvtime maintenance that you agree to add.

Regards,
Mauro