Re: [MAINTAINERS SUMMIT] [3/4] Elevate handling of regressions that made it to releases deemed for end users

Mark Brown
2024-06-14T14:10:09Z

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1127 bytes --]

On Thu, Jun 13, 2024 at 01:39:00PM +0200, Jiri Kosina wrote:
> On Thu, 13 Jun 2024, Laurent Pinchart wrote:

> > I don't think piling pressure will help. What could help is to reduce
> > pressure on already overloaded maintainers, to give them more time to
> > handle regressions. There have been multiple discussions about
> > co-maintainance models over the past few years, and some subsystems are
> > (slowly) moving forward. I would be more interested in participating in
> > that effort.

> Fully agreed. That's exactly why a few days ago I proposed the topic about
> exploring the options of making the merge tree more deep (by delegating
> more and making the co-maintainership model more prominent), as that in my
> view is the only available solution to the current maintainer pressure
> problem.

In my experience deeper maintainer trees are often a factor in slowing
down patches, passing things between maintainers often just inherently
adds delays even if nobody goes on holiday or whatever. Group
maintainership mitigates things like holidays but not things like
stabalisation periods.

[-- Attachment #2: signature.asc --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 488 bytes --]