XFS maintainership
A message that is not in the archive (sent off-list or not yet received): [email protected]
A message that is not in the archive (sent off-list or not yet received): [email protected]
A message that is not in the archive (sent off-list or not yet received): [email protected]
A message that is not in the archive (sent off-list or not yet received): [email protected]
A message that is not in the archive (sent off-list or not yet received): [email protected]
A message that is not in the archive (sent off-list or not yet received): 20090114012845.GO8071@disturbed
A message that is not in the archive (sent off-list or not yet received): 20090114054917.GT8071@disturbed
A message that is not in the archive (sent off-list or not yet received): 20090114055050.GU8071@disturbed
Quoted 12 lines · Dave Chinner
It seems to me that SGI wants to maintain control without doing any of the work that having that control requires of them. i.e. take without any give....
Point in case: we have a _critical_ 2.6.28 regression w.r.t. directory handling. The community triaged the bug, the community fixed the bug and the community reviewed the fix. It got checked into the SGI controlled dev tree 4 days ago. Now we are waiting for SGI to stop playing "let's all be one happy family la-la-la" games and get off their backsides and *act as responsible maintainers* by pushing the fix to Linus ASAP.
Quoted 5 lines
Please, show us that SGI is really going to act as the maintainer of XFS. The only thing that will convince me right now that SGI should continue as XFS maintainer is this:
"Gesta non verba"
Ooh, bonus points for the Latin!
Since 12/10, when Melbourne got erased, there have only been 6 emails from sgi to the list which were not from the short-timer skeleton crew
left in Melbourne. 3 of these had something to do with development. 2
were related to this question of maintainership. 1 was a test email.
Meanwhile almost 100 patches have been sent, reviewed, and in many cases committed by hch & others to the staging trees on kernel.org. The proposed new maintainer crew has not participated in this process yet to any apparent degree. No questions, no reviews, no acks, no vetoes. This is not a personal attack by any means, but it seems that it might reflect the resources available for these tasks inside sgi.
Quoted 1 line
From my perspective, it certainly appears that much more xfs work is
being done outside sgi than inside sgi at this point in time. This *should* be a good thing for sgi, because one of your flagship storage software offerings is being maintained & moving forward with very few resource requirements from sgi.
But if sgi's role is simply to own and to veto and not to communicate, collaborate, facilitate or contribute, sgi will likely find that they've been left behind in short order. The internet is famous for routing around damage.
On the other hand, we're here to help, if you engage us.
-Eric (speaking for myself, not my employer, FWIW)
Quoted 5 lines
Cheers,
Dave.
PS: I did say I was going to make myself unpopular :/
Perhaps only with some :)
_______________________________________________
xfs mailing list
[email protected]
http://oss.sgi.com/mailman/listinfo/xfs
Quoted 19 lines · Eric Sandeen
Quoted 12 lines · Dave Chinner
It seems to me that SGI wants to maintain control without doing any of the work that having that control requires of them. i.e. take without any give....
Point in case: we have a _critical_ 2.6.28 regression w.r.t. directory handling. The community triaged the bug, the community fixed the bug and the community reviewed the fix. It got checked into the SGI controlled dev tree 4 days ago. Now we are waiting for SGI to stop playing "let's all be one happy family la-la-la" games and get off their backsides and *act as responsible maintainers* by pushing the fix to Linus ASAP.
Quoted 5 lines
Please, show us that SGI is really going to act as the maintainer of XFS. The only thing that will convince me right now that SGI should continue as XFS maintainer is this:
"Gesta non verba"
Quoted 7 lines
Ooh, bonus points for the Latin!
Since 12/10, when Melbourne got erased, there have only been 6 emails from sgi to the list which were not from the short-timer skeleton crew left in Melbourne. 3 of these had something to do with
development. 2
were related to this question of maintainership. 1 was a test email.
OK, we're all here, and listening, and learning, and getting to know the process and responsibilities, setting up right environment, all that transitional stuff.
Yes, we're overwhelmed at the moment, but not going to hide in the bushes. Just need some time.
Quoted 3 lines
Meanwhile almost 100 patches have been sent, reviewed, and in many cases
committed by hch & others to the staging trees on kernel.org.
Hmm, while not actively participating, I've been monitoring all xfs channels I know of. I haven't seen 100 patches lately. Where they all posted to this list?
Also, I think, I replied to one. Sure, it's not the right level of activity, but as I said, it's still transition period here.
Quoted 7 lines
The
proposed new maintainer crew has not participated in this process yet to
any apparent degree. No questions, no reviews, no acks, no vetoes. This is not a personal attack by any means, but it seems that it might reflect the resources available for these tasks inside sgi.
Quoted 8 lines
Quoted 1 line
From my perspective, it certainly appears that much more xfs work is
being done outside sgi than inside sgi at this point in time. This *should* be a good thing for sgi, because one of your flagship storage software offerings is being maintained & moving forward with very few resource requirements from sgi.
But if sgi's role is simply to own and to veto and not to communicate, collaborate, facilitate or contribute,
No, that's definitely not on anybody's mind here.
I know, community were waiting for our comments on the process, but I tried not to reply with promises, but rather wait till first commit. As it's not there yet, here is my reply, not the way I wanted, though.
Quoted 5 lines
sgi will likely find that they've
been left behind in short order. The internet is famous for routing around damage.On the other hand, we're here to help, if you engage us.
Thanks, we'll definitely need that, but expecting that to be mutual. I have no doubt we'll contribute as well.
Quoted 1 line
-Eric (speaking for myself, not my employer, FWIW)
Felix (not speaking for sgi only)
Quoted 8 lines
Quoted 7 lines
Cheers,
Dave.
PS: I did say I was going to make myself unpopular :/
Quoted 7 lines
Perhaps only with some :)
_______________________________________________
xfs mailing list
[email protected]
http://oss.sgi.com/mailman/listinfo/xfs
_______________________________________________
xfs mailing list
[email protected]
http://oss.sgi.com/mailman/listinfo/xfs
Quoted 30 lines · Felix Blyakher
Quoted 19 lines · Eric Sandeen
Quoted 12 lines · Dave Chinner
It seems to me that SGI wants to maintain control without doing any of the work that having that control requires of them. i.e. take without any give....
Point in case: we have a _critical_ 2.6.28 regression w.r.t. directory handling. The community triaged the bug, the community fixed the bug and the community reviewed the fix. It got checked into the SGI controlled dev tree 4 days ago. Now we are waiting for SGI to stop playing "let's all be one happy family la-la-la" games and get off their backsides and *act as responsible maintainers* by pushing the fix to Linus ASAP.
Quoted 5 lines
Please, show us that SGI is really going to act as the maintainer of XFS. The only thing that will convince me right now that SGI should continue as XFS maintainer is this:
"Gesta non verba"
Quoted 7 lines
Ooh, bonus points for the Latin!
Since 12/10, when Melbourne got erased, there have only been 6 emails from sgi to the list which were not from the short-timer skeleton crew left in Melbourne. 3 of these had something to do with
development. 2
were related to this question of maintainership. 1 was a test email.
Quoted 5 lines
OK, we're all here, and listening, and learning, and getting to know the process and responsibilities, setting up right environment, all that transitional stuff.
Yes, we're overwhelmed at the moment, but not going to hide in the bushes. Just need some time.
Therein lies the problem. SGI is overwhelmed and playing catchup, while there are some things that the community needs to be done immediately. That's pretty much the story of the last six months and the indications you are giving are that it will continue this way for some time....
Quoted 7 lines
Quoted 3 lines
Meanwhile almost 100 patches have been sent, reviewed, and in many cases
committed by hch & others to the staging trees on kernel.org.Hmm, while not actively participating, I've been monitoring all xfs channels I know of. I haven't seen 100 patches lately. Where they all posted to this list?
$ find incoming/xfs-linux/cur/ -newerct 20081210 -exec grep PATCH {} \; |grep ^Subject |grep -v [Rr]e: | wc -l
100Quoted 11 lines
Quoted 8 lines
Quoted 1 line
From my perspective, it certainly appears that much more xfs work is
being done outside sgi than inside sgi at this point in time. This *should* be a good thing for sgi, because one of your flagship storage software offerings is being maintained & moving forward with very few resource requirements from sgi.
But if sgi's role is simply to own and to veto and not to communicate, collaborate, facilitate or contribute,
No, that's definitely not on anybody's mind here.
I know, community were waiting for our comments on the process,
FWIW, I'm waiting for action, not comments...
Cheers,
Dave.
Signature · 7 lines
Dave Chinner [email protected] _______________________________________________ xfs mailing list [email protected] http://oss.sgi.com/mailman/listinfo/xfs
XFS maintainership...
In reply to a message not in the archiveQuoted 1 line · Dave Chinner
PS: I did say I was going to make myself unpopular :/
It depends with who.
As a Linux XFS user for what must be the best part of a decade now, quite some time before it was merged --- I don't recall exactly when; I've been happy with it, it's had a lot of good people behind it and many incremental improvements and fixes.
I'd like to see that continue. I'd really like to see:
- the list move to vger' (please)
- the maintainer-ship move to yourself and Christoph (if either or both of you are willing)
- things to continue more or less as they have over the last 12-24 months (or better, but not worse)
For various uses right now there is no viable stable alternative to XFS. It would be a shame to let XFS rot and degrade given the now fairly large user base. Most of which are probably completely unheard of.
_______________________________________________
xfs mailing list
[email protected]
http://oss.sgi.com/mailman/listinfo/xfs