Re: [Ksummit-discuss] [MAINTAINERS SUMMIT] Pull network and Patch Acceptance Consistency

James Bottomley
2019-06-06T16:24:42Z

[splitting issues to shorten replies]
On Thu, 2019-06-06 at 17:58 +0200, Greg KH wrote:
> On Thu, Jun 06, 2019 at 06:48:36PM +0300, James Bottomley wrote:
> > This is probably best done as two separate topics
> >
> > 1) Pull network: The pull depth is effectively how many pulls your
> > tree does before it goes to Linus, so pull depth 0 is sent straight
> > to Linus, pull depth 1 is sent to a maintainer who sends to Linus
> > and so on. We've previously spent time discussing how increasing
> > the pull depth of the network would reduce the amount of time Linus
> > spends handling pull requests. However, in the areas I play, like
> > security, we seem to be moving in the opposite direction
> > (encouraging people to go from pull depth 1 to pull depth 0). If
> > we're deciding to move to a flat tree model, where everything is
> > depth 0, that's fine, I just think we could do with making a formal
> > decision on it so we don't waste energy encouraging greater tree
> > depth.
>
> That depth "change" was due to the perceived problems that having a
> deeper pull depth was causing. To sort that out, Linus asked for
> things to go directly to him.

This seems to go beyond problems with one tree and is becoming a trend.

> It seems like the real issue is the problem with that subsystem
> collection point, and the fact that the depth changed is a sign that
> our model works well (i.e. everyone can be routed around.)

I'm not really interested in calling out "problem" maintainers, or
indeed having another "my patch collection method is better than yours"
type discussion. What I was fishing for is whether the general
impression that greater tree depth is worth striving for is actually
correct, or we should all give up now and simply accept that the
current flat tree is the best we can do, and, indeed is the model that
works best for Linus. I get the impression this may be the case, but I
think making sure by having an actual discussion among the interested
parties who will be at the kernel summit, would be useful.

> So, maybe some work on fixing up subsystems that have problems
> aggregating things? Seems like some areas of the kernel do this just
> fine, perhaps some workflow for the developers involved needs to be
> adjusted?

As I said, I'm not really that interested in upbraiding the problem
cases, I'm more interested in discussing the generalities, and what we
as maintainers should be encouraging.

James