Re: [GIT PATCH] hwmon updates against v2.6.26

[Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org>]

On Wed, 6 Aug 2008 10:39:03 +0200 Jean Delvare <khali@linux-fr.org> wrote:

> Hi Mark, Andrew,
> 
> On Fri, 1 Aug 2008 00:10:27 -0400, Mark M. Hoffman wrote:
> > Hi Linus:
> > 
> > Please pull from:
> > 	git://lm-sensors.org/kernel/mhoffman/hwmon-2.6.git release
> > 
> > You'll get what few patches I've managed to look at in the last few months,
> > including a patch to MAINTAINERS which makes it official.  I'm sorry I was
> > not able to keep up - I should have admitted defeat much sooner.
> 
> I'm sad to see you go (and can only hope that you won't leave the
> project entirely). But I would also like to thank you for the good work
> you've done. Even if it was short, everything you did is done and
> that's something you can be proud of.

yup.

> I have a number of hwmon patches in my local kernel tree which I wrote
> and that have been reviewed by a trusted developer, or that have been
> posted to the lm-sensors list and that I have reviewed. I consider
> these ready to go upstream. I plan to gather these into a public tree
> and push them to Linus today or tomorrow. In the future, I will
> probably have such a tree available to be included in linux-next.
> 
> Don't get me wrong, I am _not_ volunteering to become the new hwmon
> subsystem maintainer. Remember, I've been there before and you know how
> it ended. But in the absence of a subsystem maintainer, I don't want
> hwmon patches to be lost (and especially not mine) and I don't think
> that pushing everything to Andrew is a good solution either. So I'm
> just proposing to do my part of the work. But if Andrew really prefers
> to pick all the patches, I am not insisting either.

That would be great, thanks.

But it does mean that I'd prefer that any hwmon patches which I pick up
are merged via that tree if that's OK.  Which all does end up making
you look awfully like an hwmon maintainer..

> In the future, I would like to suggest to have 2 hwmon subsystem
> maintainers instead of 1. Apparently none of us has the time to do all
> the work, but maybe some of us would have the time to do half of it.
> This is the path I took for the i2c subsystem, and while the change is
> still fairly recent, it seems to be working well enough.

Sure.  Having additional people reviewing, testing and generally caring
for changes has practically zero downside.