Re: On community influencing (was Re: [PATCH v8 2/2] rust: add dma coherent allocator abstraction.)

Mark Brown
2025-02-19T15:03:42Z

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1439 bytes --]

On Fri, Feb 14, 2025 at 02:10:57AM -0500, Neal Gompa wrote:
> On Mon, Feb 10, 2025 at 12:28 PM Mark Brown <broonie@kernel.org> wrote:

> > We do actually have some people using forges already, for example the
> > SOF people do a bunch of their review on github and then turn that into
> > patch serieses which they send via the normal email route when they're
> > happy with them. I think tree wide stuff flows in via back merges or
> > rebases, one of the benefits of delegation is that it's not my problem.
> > This all works perfectly well from my side, as far as I know it's fine
> > for the SOF people too. It certainly doesn't seem insurmountable.

> It might be working as long as a subsystem continues to allow
> receiving patches via email. As soon as a subsystem decides to stop
> doing that (which is absolutely their right given the model of
> subsystem maintenance that the Linux project has), I think this will
> break down very quickly.

Eh, probably they'll just get bypassed for the affected patches if they
really just drop everything on the floor. That's effectively what's
happening with SOF in that I take patches for it (which seems to work
for everyone, people do review stuff that comes in on the list). That
tends to be what happens if people are unresponsive. More likely
there'f be some bridging effort of some kind with pressure applied to
get substantial work done on the forge.

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