RE: Maintainers master list?

RE: Maintainers master list?

[Holzrichter, Bruce]

>What happens now when somebody takes over responsibility for a file
>or subsystem and the MAINTAINERS file doesn't get patched, either because
>that person forgets to send a MAINTAINERS update or Linus doesn't 
>happen to take the MAINTAINERS patch for a while?

>What happens when I look at a file and it's not obvious which
>subsystem it belongs to?  Sure, I can grovel through MAINTAINERS.  But
>how do I know which verbal description matches the function of the
>cryptically-commented or uncommented code I have in front of me?

>Distributed-information problems need distributed-information
>solutions.  Locality is your friend.  This crowd should know that
>if anybody should.

I'll throw this back out again, and if you all are not interested, drop it
if you want.  I am looking for places and points to help out where I see
issues come up several times, and this is one I have seen occasionally. I am
not advocating Eric's proposal for sweeping maintainer's changes, though I
respect Eric, and all the developers work.  How about starting with a simple
MAINTAINERS file maintainer?  Someone to actively follow project developers
and contact info?  Not a small or simple project, I understand, but maybe a
central point to send patches to Linus for the Maintainers file?  Just my
two cents, on a Tuesday  :o)

B.

RE: Maintainers master list?

[Rik van Riel]

On Tue, 26 Jun 2001, Holzrichter, Bruce wrote:

> respect Eric, and all the developers work.  How about starting
> with a simple MAINTAINERS file maintainer?  Someone to actively
> follow project developers and contact info?

That's the best idea I've read so far.

Any takers?

regards,

Rik
--
Executive summary of a recent Microsoft press release:
   "we are concerned about the GNU General Public License (GPL)"


		http://www.surriel.com/
http://www.conectiva.com/	http://distro.conectiva.com/

RE: Maintainers master list?

[Robert Love]

On 26 Jun 2001 16:03:05 -0300, Rik van Riel wrote:
> On Tue, 26 Jun 2001, Holzrichter, Bruce wrote:
> 
> > respect Eric, and all the developers work.  How about starting
> > with a simple MAINTAINERS file maintainer?  Someone to actively
> > follow project developers and contact info?
> 
> That's the best idea I've read so far.
> 
> Any takers?

me.  I took issue with the MAINTAINERS file when Eric brought it up
originally.  However, I don't think drastic measures need to be taken.
I have seen a lot of ideas, including Meta-data in the kernel source.

What I think we need is the simple solution: find a maintainer for the
file, cleanup the current cruft and misinformation, and then actively
work to keep the file current.  I am willing to be this maintainer.

I am not a major "maintainer" in the kernel, but I have and do
contribute.  Thus I think this is a good task for me.  I am willing and
wanting to do this.  Comments?

-- 
Robert M. Love
rml at ufl.edu
rml at tech9.net

Re: Maintainers master list?

[Marc Brekoo]

On Tue, 26 Jun 2001, Robert Love wrote:
> me.  I took issue with the MAINTAINERS file when Eric brought it up
> originally.  However, I don't think drastic measures need to be taken.
> I have seen a lot of ideas, including Meta-data in the kernel source.
>
> What I think we need is the simple solution: find a maintainer for the
> file, cleanup the current cruft and misinformation, and then actively
> work to keep the file current.  I am willing to be this maintainer.
>
> I am not a major "maintainer" in the kernel, but I have and do
> contribute.  Thus I think this is a good task for me.  I am willing and
> wanting to do this.  Comments?

I've been waiting for an opportunity like this to join in, so I'd be very
happy to help you with this.

(This would be my first contribution to linux, please be gentle :-)

Regards,

Marc Brekoo

Re: Maintainers master list?

[Jes Sorensen]

>>>>> "Robert" == Robert Love <rml@tech9.net> writes:

Robert> me.  I took issue with the MAINTAINERS file when Eric brought
Robert> it up originally.  However, I don't think drastic measures
Robert> need to be taken.  I have seen a lot of ideas, including
Robert> Meta-data in the kernel source.

Robert> What I think we need is the simple solution: find a maintainer
Robert> for the file, cleanup the current cruft and misinformation,
Robert> and then actively work to keep the file current.  I am willing
Robert> to be this maintainer.

A good place to start would be to write a script that checks the email
addresses listed in there for bounces say every 6 months (not too
often or people will get grumphy). Oh and maybe include the data about
the person so he/she can verify it's ok, maybe this way we can get
forget this meta-data sillyness.

Robert> I am not a major "maintainer" in the kernel, but I have and do
Robert> contribute.  Thus I think this is a good task for me.  I am
Robert> willing and wanting to do this.  Comments?

Well, you'd become the maintainer maintainer. Thats worth a slot in
the MAINTAINERS file ;-)

Jes

RE: Maintainers master list?

[Holzrichter, Bruce]

>On Tue, 26 Jun 2001, Holzrichter, Bruce wrote:

>> respect Eric, and all the developers work.  How about starting
>> with a simple MAINTAINERS file maintainer?  Someone to actively
>> follow project developers and contact info?

>That's the best idea I've read so far.

>Any takers?

Along with some other people that have replied, I would be happy to help out
any way I can.

Bruce H.

RE: Maintainers master list?

[Holzrichter, Bruce]

>I have proposed that the MAINTAINERS file should be replaced by
>metadata markup in the kernel sources themselves, distributed so that
>it will naturally be kept up to date by the people named in it and
>mechanically gathered into a generated MAINTAINERS at make dep time.

>I still think this is the right thing, and was planning to revisit the 
>issue after the 2.5 cutover.  But it certainly doesn't have to be me that
>does it, and between CML2 and the Configure.help file and countering 
>Microsoft's anti-open-source propaganda war I have plenty of other things
>to worry about.  

>So if you want to take this on, I encourage you to go to it.  Want a
>copy of the metadata schema I wrote up?

I would be happy to look at any work that you have already done on this, so
feel free to send it along to me.  Let's take a look at what you have and
where we might be able to take this.

B.

RE: Missing help entries in 2.4.6pre5

[Holzrichter, Bruce]

>From the person(s) reponsible for the missing symbols,
>I want documentation.  The problem is that, lacking a detailed database
>of who is responsible for what, I don't know how to prod each of the
>people I really want to supplicate/irritate without having you see it
>also.

Now that sounds like a credible idea.  Would it be possible to set up a LK
maintainers master list, and host from www.kernel.org or somewhere (Not
knowing anyone at kernel.org, I can't speak for them.) that could be linked
from sites, and have one person or maintainer in charge of keeping track of
who is in charge of maintaining what.  This could be a point of contact for
issues like this, and where they can be addressed.  It would be a large
administrative project, but could be a point of help for some of us who are
not quite capable of real kernel level hacking yet :o)

B.

PS.  I may have just volunteered, I guess.  If someone would be interested,
or if their already is a list, let me know offline if you prefer.

Maintainers master list?

[Eric S. Raymond]

Holzrichter, Bruce <bruce.holzrichter@monster.com>:
> Now that sounds like a credible idea.  Would it be possible to set up a LK
> maintainers master list, and host from www.kernel.org or somewhere (Not
> knowing anyone at kernel.org, I can't speak for them.) that could be linked
> from sites, and have one person or maintainer in charge of keeping track of
> who is in charge of maintaining what.  This could be a point of contact for
> issues like this, and where they can be addressed.  It would be a large
> administrative project, but could be a point of help for some of us who are
> not quite capable of real kernel level hacking yet :o)

I think maintaining such a list separately from the kernel sources themselves
will just be asking for extra work and for the database to drift out of sync
with reality.

I have proposed that the MAINTAINERS file should be replaced by
metadata markup in the kernel sources themselves, distributed so that
it will naturally be kept up to date by the people named in it and
mechanically gathered into a generated MAINTAINERS at make dep time.

I still think this is the right thing, and was planning to revisit the 
issue after the 2.5 cutover.  But it certainly doesn't have to be me that
does it, and between CML2 and the Configure.help file and countering 
Microsoft's anti-open-source propaganda war I have plenty of other things
to worry about.  

So if you want to take this on, I encourage you to go to it.  Want a
copy of the metadata schema I wrote up?
-- 
		<a href="http://www.tuxedo.org/~esr/">Eric S. Raymond</a>

"The power to tax involves the power to destroy;...the power to
destroy may defeat and render useless the power to create...."
	-- Chief Justice John Marshall, 1819.

Re: Maintainers master list?

[Rik van Riel]

On Fri, 22 Jun 2001, Eric S. Raymond wrote:

> I have proposed that the MAINTAINERS file should be replaced by
> metadata markup in the kernel sources themselves, distributed so that
> it will naturally be kept up to date by the people named in it and
> mechanically gathered into a generated MAINTAINERS at make dep time.

Look, when somebody stops maintaining something, they'll
stop sending patches. When this happens it's only natural
that the information you want to use to generate the
MAINTAINERS file is also out of date.

I fail to see how your idea would solve anything.

regards,

Rik
--
Executive summary of a recent Microsoft press release:
   "we are concerned about the GNU General Public License (GPL)"


		http://www.surriel.com/
http://www.conectiva.com/	http://distro.conectiva.com/

Re: Maintainers master list?

[Eric S. Raymond]

Rik van Riel <riel@conectiva.com.br>:
> Look, when somebody stops maintaining something, they'll
> stop sending patches. When this happens it's only natural
> that the information you want to use to generate the
> MAINTAINERS file is also out of date.

True.  Distributed metadata won't solve this problem.  It won't make the
problem any worse, either, so it's a wash on this issue.
 
> I fail to see how your idea would solve anything.

What happens now when somebody takes over responsibility for a file
or subsystem and the MAINTAINERS file doesn't get patched, either because
that person forgets to send a MAINTAINERS update or Linus doesn't 
happen to take the MAINTAINERS patch for a while?

What happens when I look at a file and it's not obvious which
subsystem it belongs to?  Sure, I can grovel through MAINTAINERS.  But
how do I know which verbal description matches the function of the
cryptically-commented or uncommented code I have in front of me?

Distributed-information problems need distributed-information
solutions.  Locality is your friend.  This crowd should know that
if anybody should.
-- 
		<a href="http://www.tuxedo.org/~esr/">Eric S. Raymond</a>

A human being should be able to change a diaper, plan an invasion,
butcher a hog, conn a ship, design a building, write a sonnet, balance
accounts, build a wall, set a bone, comfort the dying, take orders, give
orders, cooperate, act alone, solve equations, analyze a new problem,
pitch manure, program a computer, cook a tasty meal, fight efficiently,
die gallantly. Specialization is for insects.
	-- Robert A. Heinlein, "Time Enough for Love"

Re: Maintainers master list?

[Timur Tabi]

** Reply to message from "Eric S. Raymond" <esr@thyrsus.com> on Fri, 22 Jun
2001 17:09:45 -0400


> What happens now when somebody takes over responsibility for a file
> or subsystem and the MAINTAINERS file doesn't get patched, either because
> that person forgets to send a MAINTAINERS update or Linus doesn't 
> happen to take the MAINTAINERS patch for a while?

Wouldn't this whole problem go away if the kernel source were stored in a
master CVS repository?  Maintainers would have write access to their respective
code, but only Linus and Alan would have delete access.  Everyone else would
have read-only access.


-- 
Timur Tabi - ttabi@interactivesi.com
Interactive Silicon - http://www.interactivesi.com

Re: Maintainers master list?

[Rob Landley]

On Friday 22 June 2001 17:19, Timur Tabi wrote:
> ** Reply to message from "Eric S. Raymond" <esr@thyrsus.com> on Fri, 22 Jun
> 2001 17:09:45 -0400
>
> > What happens now when somebody takes over responsibility for a file
> > or subsystem and the MAINTAINERS file doesn't get patched, either because
> > that person forgets to send a MAINTAINERS update or Linus doesn't
> > happen to take the MAINTAINERS patch for a while?
>
> Wouldn't this whole problem go away if the kernel source were stored in a
> master CVS repository?  Maintainers would have write access to their
> respective code, but only Linus and Alan would have delete access. 
> Everyone else would have read-only access.

This has been suggested about eight thousand times so far, and the answer is 
"no".  I'm fairly certain there's a FAQ entry on this.

The reason Linus won't do it is it conflicts with the way he works.  He 
approves patches by reading through them in his mail reader (Pine, I think) 
and appending the ones he likes to a file.  Then when he's done reading mail 
he pipes the whole file to patch and it goes into his tree.

(I'm pondering an idea of sending Linus a perl script that he can use to pipe 
that file to patch which will split out the individual emails and forward 
them to an otherwise read-only "patches-linus-has-applied" mailing list.  The 
important part of this idea is it doesn't change the way he works or make him 
do any extra work at all.  And we get the documentation in the emails and a 
record of what patches got applied when.  And this WOULD allow a fairly 
granular CVS tree to be kept up-to-date by a third party who simply 
subscribes to the list and automatically feeds the patches into CVS.)

But Linus will NOT allow a line of code into his tree which he hasn't 
personally approved.  He may apply patches forwarded to him by maintainers 
without thoroughly reading them first, but he still approves them and knows 
when they go in, and makes sure they don't conflict with anything else he's 
applying or already applied.  So in a "Linux-kernel CVS tree", only Linus 
would have the ability to check stuff in, so he considers it a waste of time 
and just sends us tarballs instead.

The fact Linus does this is a bottleneck, sure.  But the fact we've got one 
guy in charge making decisions and vetoing anything that shouldn't go in is 
also the main reason we've got a coherent source base.  Look at the ongoing 
fight between Rik and Andrea: even smart people who are generally right can 
disagree about architectural direction, and if they both make changes without 
somebody steering Bad Things will result.

Rob