[Mesa-dev] [RFC] Mesa 17.3.x release problems and process improvements

[Emil Velikov]

On 5 April 2018 at 03:33, Ilia Mirkin <imirkin at alum.mit.edu> wrote:
> On Wed, Apr 4, 2018 at 12:12 PM, Emil Velikov <emil.l.velikov at gmail.com> wrote:
>> On 22 March 2018 at 00:39, Ilia Mirkin <imirkin at alum.mit.edu> wrote:
>>> Just one bit of feedback, for the rest I either agree or have no opinion:
>>>
>>> On Wed, Mar 21, 2018 at 8:28 PM, Emil Velikov <emil.l.velikov at gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>  * unfit and late nominations:
>>>>     * any rejections that are unfit based on the existing criteria can
>>>>       be merged as long as:
>>>>        * subsystem specific patches are approved by the team
>>>>          maintainer(s).
>>>>        * patches that cover multiple subsystems are approved by 50%+1
>>>>          of the maintainers of the affected subsystems.
>>>
>>> I don't think 50% + 1 is workable. That would mean for a core mesa
>>> patch, one would have to get like 5+ people to ack it. Seems like a
>>> lot. (And I suspect will lead to debates about how to count "affected"
>>> subsystems.) IMHO 2 is enough, i.e. the maintainer that wants it, and
>>> another maintainer who thinks it's reasonable.
>>>
>> The presumption of 5+ people is based that we'll get at least 8
>> sub-system maintainers.
>
> That's what I mean -- you'll get quibbling over who's involved and
> who's not.
On the contrary - throw _any_ name in the docs/ somewhere.
We want to have something documented, so we don't end in the same pickle.

> There are like 10 different drivers, each with a separate
> maintainer, and they can all be variously affected by a patch.
> Figuring out how to "count" properly is complicated and seemingly
> unnecessary. 2's enough - this isn't for a poll, it's for a "someone
> other than me thinks this is important", to counter a "unfit and late
> nomination" style argument from the release engineer. Getting a lot of
> people to *actively* support a patch is a straight path to nothing
> happening. Getting one other person (out of the maintainer group)
> seems reasonable. These types of (social) systems are fairly
> self-policing -- if we really do run into serious problems, they can
> be addressed then.
>
So in a TLDR: Worry about broken driver as/if that happens - fine with me.
I'll just refer people to this discussion in those cases.

-Emil