From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Thomas Petazzoni Date: Wed, 24 Aug 2016 16:04:31 +0200 Subject: [Buildroot] [PATCHv2/next 2/4] DEVELOPERS: add initial list of Buildroot developers In-Reply-To: <7ada4fd0-8ca3-c59f-bbfd-1ece1f636d73@mind.be> References: <1471956466-22338-1-git-send-email-thomas.petazzoni@free-electrons.com> <1471956466-22338-3-git-send-email-thomas.petazzoni@free-electrons.com> <7ada4fd0-8ca3-c59f-bbfd-1ece1f636d73@mind.be> Message-ID: <20160824160431.09a27761@free-electrons.com> List-Id: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit To: buildroot@busybox.net Hello, On Wed, 24 Aug 2016 02:17:25 +0200, Arnout Vandecappelle wrote: > On 23-08-16 14:47, Thomas Petazzoni wrote: > > +N: Arnout Vandecappelle > > +F: package/freescale-imx/firmware-imx/ > > +F: package/freescale-imx/imx-lib/ > > +F: package/gstreamer/gst-fsl-plugins/ > > +F: package/moarvm/ > > This one was an accident: I took over the patch from Francois and slightly > amended it, but then I committed with --reset-author (I have an alias for git > commit --amend --reset-author -C HEAD). I actually have no idea what moarvm does :-) ACK, I'm moving this package to Fran?ois. > > +F: package/owfs/ > > +F: package/python-bottle/ > > +F: package/sqlcipher/ > > +F: package/stress/ > > All of these were really drive-by patches, I don't use any of them regularly. > And in fact, I think that that will be the case for the majority of the packages > that are listed now. Shall I remove those packages from your name? > I'm afraid that maintaining the DEVELOPERS file (pruning dead e-mail addresses, > removing people that are no longer interested in a particular package) is going > to take more effort (i.e. more commits) than we actually gain by putting the > developers in Cc. Then I don't think you've been doing this "Analysis of autobuilder results" enough times. It's a very long and boring work to look at those autobuilder issues, analyze them quickly, and try to remember by head which developer is the most appropriate for the different packages/issues in order to Cc the relevant people. So I completely disagree that maintaining this file will be more work than putting the developers in Cc. Or at least, I can say that the work will be spread on the shoulders of everyone (every developer submitting a new package) instead of just being on my shoulders, when doing the analysis of autobuilder results. Or maybe you just volunteered to do the analysis of the autobuilder results ? :-) > So for this initial version, I'd suggest keeping just the people that we know > are active. Basically the people who have responded to this patch :-) And then > in the contributing documentation, invite people to also update the DEVELOPERS > file with their entry. I also completely disagree with this. Keeping only the people that we know are active would be _entirely_ useless. The people that we know are active... well they are already active, so there's little point Cc'ing them some additional e-mails: they already look at the autobuilder issues regularly, they fix their own packages, and even packages submitted by others, etc. The whole point of this DEVELOPERS file is to increase the set of developers who help in fixing the autobuilder issues, and in reviewing new patches coming in that touch packages they know about. By adding a large initial set of developers, even people who are rarely active, we let those people know that we need their help to continue maintain the packages they contributed. In the best case, since they will receive a direct e-mail, they will notice, and help us. In the worst case, they will ignore the e-mail or maybe better let us know they are no longer interested in Buildroot (in which case we can decide what to do with the problematic package). So having a minimal DEVELOPERS file would be pretty much entirely against the point of having it. Best regards, Thomas -- Thomas Petazzoni, CTO, Free Electrons Embedded Linux and Kernel engineering http://free-electrons.com