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

Neal Gompa
2025-02-14T07:18:59Z

On Mon, Feb 10, 2025 at 12:28 PM Mark Brown <broonie@kernel.org> wrote:
>
> On Sun, Feb 09, 2025 at 03:25:26AM -0500, Neal Gompa wrote:
> > On Friday, February 7, 2025 1:16:11 PM Eastern Standard Time Konstantin
> > Ryabitsev wrote:
>
> > > It is my goal to be able to give subsystems a way to use forges without it
> > > impacting how they interact with upstream or handle tree-wide changes. That
> > > is, once I'm done moving things from one Benevolent Company to another.
>
> > Honestly, this is probably not possible. If a subsystem moves to a forge
> > workflow, it pretty much means tree-wide changes need to work partially that
> > way too.
>
> 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.

I wonder which team will be the first one to do it. It's not a
question of if, but when.

--
真実はいつも一つ！/ Always, there's only one truth!