On Thu, Mar 15, 2018 at 4:32 PM, Jani Nikula jani.nikula@intel.com wrote:
On Thu, 15 Mar 2018, Daniel Vetter daniel@ffwll.ch wrote:
On Wed, Mar 14, 2018 at 05:11:02PM +0200, Jani Nikula wrote:
Until now, the drm-intel commit access have been handed out ad hoc, without transparency, consistency, or fairness. With pressure to add more committers, this is no longer tenable, if it ever was. Document the requirements and expectations around becoming a drm-intel committer.
The Linux kernel operates in a model where, by and large, only maintainers commit patches. Maintainer teams are no longer rare, but the drm-intel and drm-misc maintainer/committer model is definitely an outlier.
The drm-intel maintainers believe that a reasonable level of experience and track record of working on the driver, as well as actively engaging in the community upstream, are necessary before becoming a committer. While the requirements outlined here may seem strict in contrast with many projects, they are extremely liberal by kernel standards.
Finally, no rules are carved in stone. We fully expect the requirements to be adjusted later. However, it will be much easier to start strict and relax the requirements later than the other way round.
Cc: Gustavo Padovan gustavo@padovan.org Cc: Maarten Lankhorst maarten.lankhorst@linux.intel.com Cc: Sean Paul seanpaul@chromium.org Cc: Dave Airlie airlied@gmail.com Cc: dim-tools@lists.freedesktop.org Cc: dri-devel@lists.freedesktop.org Cc: intel-gfx@lists.freedesktop.org Signed-off-by: Jani Nikula jani.nikula@intel.com Signed-off-by: Joonas Lahtinen joonas.lahtinen@linux.intel.com Signed-off-by: Rodrigo Vivi rodrigo.vivi@intel.com
I've chatted for a few hours with Joonas, and I think before we can discuss the proposed document here itself, we first need to reach some agreement on why we even have commit rights. I think there's a very wide range of answers to that questions, and of course with different goals you end up with completely different rules about how to handle commit rights.
Joonas suggested we first discuss this internally, perhaps with the maintainers, Kimmo and me.
Fine. I would rather have discussed this transparently out in the open. That was, after all, the purpose of sending this out.
This was more or less Joonas' requests after our long discussion (he did take a quick look at my reply before I sent it out). We can also have the discussion here, I do have the draft still lying around somewhere. -Daniel