From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Sagi Grimberg Subject: Re: [Lsf] [TOPIC] scsi-queue tree past and future Date: Sat, 07 Mar 2015 05:10:36 +0200 Message-ID: <54FA6C2C.3050608@dev.mellanox.co.il> References: <20150305133118.GA16575@lst.de> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=windows-1252; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Return-path: Received: from mail-we0-f182.google.com ([74.125.82.182]:43671 "EHLO mail-we0-f182.google.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1753501AbbCGDKl (ORCPT ); Fri, 6 Mar 2015 22:10:41 -0500 Received: by wesu56 with SMTP id u56so62984995wes.10 for ; Fri, 06 Mar 2015 19:10:40 -0800 (PST) In-Reply-To: <20150305133118.GA16575@lst.de> Sender: linux-scsi-owner@vger.kernel.org List-Id: linux-scsi@vger.kernel.org To: Christoph Hellwig , lsf@lists.linux-foundation.org, lsf-pc@lists.linux-foundation.org, linux-scsi@vger.kernel.org On 3/5/2015 3:31 PM, Christoph Hellwig wrote: > For about 8 month I've merged almost every scsi commit through the > scsi-queue staging tree, and it seems to have worked out well enough. > > I've been too busy for the next cycle, so 4.1 will probably have to live > without it. I'd like to get feedback on how the tree worked for contributors > and driver maintainers, and brainstorm how to move forward with it, preferably > some form of real team maintainance that avoids single points of failure. +1 I think this approach can make a lot of sense for other subsystems as well. Sagi.