[linux-dvb] [RFC] Reviewed development procedures & DVB Maintainer

Markus Rechberger mrechberger at gmail.com
Wed Mar 7 20:52:40 CET 2007


On 3/7/07, Mauro Carvalho Chehab <mchehab at infradead.org> wrote:
> Hi Marcel,
>
> Em Qua, 2007-03-07 às 15:28 +0100, Marcel Siegert escreveu:
>
> > i am a bit confused on the "old" topic.
> > we do actually have _two_ different projects. they depend on
> > each other, and at least both projects are kept in one repository.
> Yes. IMO, we went into the right direction when we took the decision of
> merging their trees, avoiding the big troubles we had in the past, by
> trying to sync the trees and to support hybrid devices that depend on
> both core coding.
> >
> > we have been and still are in a discussion who is maintainer of what.
> >
> > at least my understanding has been mauro is maintaining v4l, whilst
> > all the dvb developers are maintaining dvb.
> >
> > mauro is and has been responsible for preparing kernel pushes/patchsets
> > and that work is appreciated by the dvb guys.
> >From my POV, this model can continue working.
>
> Currently, each developer is maintaining their drivers (no matter if the
> driver is v4l or dvb). DVB core is collectively maintained by their
> authors.
>
> My person, currently, plays with two different roles:
>
> 1) acting as subsystem (you can read /drivers/media) maintainer,
> responsible for kernel patch acceptance, reviewing, according with best
> practices, patch merging at master tree, patch submission to mainstream,
> etc, forwarding to each driver author (or maintainer) any subject I
> receive about their driver. This applies for all drivers under the
> subsystem as a hole;
>
> 2) Maintaining V4L core stuff and the V4L drivers for whose author
> delegated maintainership to me or that are otherwise abandoned by their
> authors. This task is shared with a great team of developers that helps
> maintaining the drivers I took the responsibility (we have several
> contributions, on regular basis, for tuner, cx88, bttv and saa7134).
> Also, V4L core changes are always discussed by the community and the
> developers.
>

Nice written but I'm not sure if it's good to keep it that way.
If core topics are discussed only a very few developers participate
and "great team of developers" depends on what you discuss. I could
easily prove that I got misleaded here already several times.
I wonder how someone could respect a core developer who does that.

> > but, due to recently upcoming discussions, who maintains what and why,
> > we could stop this time consumption by just opening up a
> poll/voting/pedition
> > if we need a "one person" dvb subtree maintainer and if so, who it is to
> be.
>
> If I understood your point, you are proposing to elect one maintainer
> for DVB core (since the drivers should still be kept maintained by each
> developer).
>

it would be nice if the initial core developers or a company with a
good background would participate here.

> Personally, I don't see any gain with this. Instead, IMHO, we should
> work on properly identifying the maintainer for each driver. There are
> some drivers that doesn't seem to be maintained by nobody (webcam
> drivers, radio drivers, dvb drivers). I tried once to identify the
> responsibilities, but there were several holes at my list.
>
> As a suggestion, we may, add a CREDITS file at the tree, with the name
> of the responsible(s) for each driver.
>
> > if that is done someday in the nearer future, we can start over to develop
> > not to discuss the same stuff  regularly without a result.
> Yes. It is a pain having to stop with development to discuss such
> questions.
>
> > that were my 2 ct for now.
> >
> > best regards
> > marcel
> >

Markus



More information about the linux-dvb mailing list