[linux-dvb] [RFC] Reviewed development procedures & DVB Maintainer
Mauro Carvalho Chehab
mchehab at infradead.org
Wed Mar 7 17:15:01 CET 2007
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
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
> 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
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
> that were my 2 ct for now.
> best regards
> ps. i dont think people are saying bullshit at backstage.
I hope so.
> we all are or should be
> grown-up enough to say what we think and to be able to take what other people
> my think about ourselves.
More information about the linux-dvb