From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Oliver Hartkopp Subject: netdev development process - was Re: [PATCH next-next 0/2] can: cc770: add support for the Bosch CC770 and Intel AN82527 Date: Thu, 01 Dec 2011 09:15:42 +0100 Message-ID: <4ED737AE.7030405@hartkopp.net> References: <1322136448-7311-1-git-send-email-wg@grandegger.com> <20111129.183950.1327835803051184146.davem@davemloft.net> <4ED5CF14.4020502@hartkopp.net> <20111130.160727.1989923062226789802.davem@davemloft.net> <4ED73117.1020101@hartkopp.net> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Return-path: Received: from mo-p00-ob.rzone.de ([81.169.146.161]:19665 "EHLO mo-p00-ob.rzone.de" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1751028Ab1LAIPx (ORCPT ); Thu, 1 Dec 2011 03:15:53 -0500 In-Reply-To: <4ED73117.1020101@hartkopp.net> Sender: linux-can-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: To: wg@grandegger.com, Marc Kleine-Budde , Urs Thuermann Cc: Urs Thuermann , linux-can@vger.kernel.org Hello Marc and Urs, what are your plans regarding a maintainer ship of your persons? Urs is pretty absent and Marc is pretty active :-) IMO we should update the MAINTAINERS file to make the responsibilities clear to Dave & the rest of the world. @Urs: Should we remove you from net/can maintainers? The fact that you are module author of several code parts is not touched at all but your activities to contribute to discussions is close to zero. @Marc/Wolfgang: What are your thoughts about that? Is Wolfgang still enough or would you like to share your activities? I think the remarks from Dave hit the point and we should really try to minimize confusion when talking to him in the future ... Regards, Oliver >> A not very good dev process - job was done here communicating to me what is happening. >> Endless revisions, and not clear indication to me what should or should >> not be applied as a result. > > > Well in this case i was just astonished why you applied a superseded patch set > - but i must admit that the pile-up of posted versions was a bit confusing. > Even there were platform and devtree patches that needed to be acked by other > maintainers - IMO we should post these patches on netdev only when they are > already acked by the platform/devtree guys. > > @Wolfgang/Marc: We should return to discuss the CAN relevant patches on > linux-can@vger.kernel.org before posting them on netdev. Don't know why this > established & good process has changed over the time ... > >> I want you guys to appoint someone to be the defacto CAN driver and >> subsystem maintainer who collects and merges all the driver and >> protocol patches into his tree, and acts as the one and only interface >> for me when changes are ready to be included. > > > I'm also not very happy someone else acking changes of my maintained sources - > sometimes it feels like Wild West to me, who's acking first :-( > > To make it clear: > > Wolfgang Grandegger maintains drivers/net/can > > and > > Oliver Hartkopp maintains net/can > > As Marc Kleine-Budde is also very active in CAN driver development we should > probably add him to the drivers/net/can maintainers. > > We'll continue the discussion on linux-can ML and give an update to the > MAINTAINERS file if we sorted out any changes. So far Wolfgang and me remain > the 'only interface' for you. Sorry for the traffic & confusion on netdev.