| Message ID | NJIL3BF--3-9@lynne.ee |
|---|---|
| State | New |
| Headers | show |
| Series | [FFmpeg-devel] MAINTAINERS: add a separate list for those with push access | expand |
| Context | Check | Description |
|---|---|---|
| yinshiyou/configure_loongarch64 | warning | Failed to apply patch |
| andriy/make_x86 | success | Make finished |
| andriy/make_fate_x86 | success | Make fate finished |
On Thu, Dec 15, 2022 at 02:13:49AM +0100, Lynne wrote: > This list is incomplete, and just contains those I could see > while looking at the recent git log. If it looks like I've forgotten you, I definitely haven't! > We may complete the list at a later date. > > This makes it such that those who add themselves to MAINTAINERS do not > get push access by default, but rather, they have to request it > explicitly in a different commit. This used to be the situation > before it was changed at the start of this year and is pretty much what > everyone expects. > > Patch attached. > > MAINTAINERS | 15 +++++++++++++++ > 1 file changed, 15 insertions(+) > 6a083061d75f6655771bde377f96aadad19b21c6 0001-MAINTAINERS-add-a-separate-list-for-those-with-push-.patch > From 5c353412a25fd46c5077e5cf92ddfd6532eb46cb Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001 > From: Lynne <dev@lynne.ee> > Date: Thu, 15 Dec 2022 02:05:00 +0100 > Subject: [PATCH] MAINTAINERS: add a separate list for those with push access > > This list is incomplete, and just contains those I could remember > while looking at the recent git log. > We may complete the list at a later date. > > This makes it such that those who add themselves to MAINTAINERS do not > get push access by default, but rather, they have to request it > explicitly in a different commit. > This used to be the situation > before it was changed at the start of this year. I remember no such change. What i do remember is really long ago trying to push people toward pushing in their own repository and sending pull requests similar to the kernel. But this was not popular so i droped the idea. Whereever code is maintained teh maintainer should have write access to that place other things become inconvenient quickly. maintainers who cannot change the code they maintain should stay an exception thx [...]
Dec 15, 2022, 20:34 by michael@niedermayer.cc: > On Thu, Dec 15, 2022 at 02:13:49AM +0100, Lynne wrote: > >> This list is incomplete, and just contains those I could see >> while looking at the recent git log. If it looks like I've forgotten you, I definitely haven't! >> We may complete the list at a later date. >> >> This makes it such that those who add themselves to MAINTAINERS do not >> get push access by default, but rather, they have to request it >> explicitly in a different commit. This used to be the situation >> before it was changed at the start of this year and is pretty much what >> everyone expects. >> >> Patch attached. >> >> MAINTAINERS | 15 +++++++++++++++ >> 1 file changed, 15 insertions(+) >> 6a083061d75f6655771bde377f96aadad19b21c6 0001-MAINTAINERS-add-a-separate-list-for-those-with-push-.patch >> From 5c353412a25fd46c5077e5cf92ddfd6532eb46cb Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001 >> From: Lynne <dev@lynne.ee> >> Date: Thu, 15 Dec 2022 02:05:00 +0100 >> Subject: [PATCH] MAINTAINERS: add a separate list for those with push access >> >> This list is incomplete, and just contains those I could remember >> while looking at the recent git log. >> We may complete the list at a later date. >> >> This makes it such that those who add themselves to MAINTAINERS do not >> get push access by default, but rather, they have to request it >> explicitly in a different commit. >> >> This used to be the situation >> before it was changed at the start of this year. >> > > I remember no such change. > What i do remember is really long ago trying to push people toward pushing in > their own repository and sending pull requests similar to the kernel. But this > was not popular so i droped the idea. > > Whereever code is maintained teh maintainer should have write access to that > place other things become inconvenient quickly. > > maintainers who cannot change the code they maintain should stay an exception > This is exactly what changed. Before, maintainers who didn't get push access was the norm, not the standard. Regardless, if you agree with the patch, I see no reason to continue discussing this.
On Fri, Dec 16, 2022 at 12:26:58AM +0100, Lynne wrote: > Dec 15, 2022, 20:34 by michael@niedermayer.cc: > > > On Thu, Dec 15, 2022 at 02:13:49AM +0100, Lynne wrote: > > > >> This list is incomplete, and just contains those I could see > >> while looking at the recent git log. If it looks like I've forgotten you, I definitely haven't! > >> We may complete the list at a later date. > >> > >> This makes it such that those who add themselves to MAINTAINERS do not > >> get push access by default, but rather, they have to request it > >> explicitly in a different commit. This used to be the situation > >> before it was changed at the start of this year and is pretty much what > >> everyone expects. > >> > >> Patch attached. > >> > >> MAINTAINERS | 15 +++++++++++++++ > >> 1 file changed, 15 insertions(+) > >> 6a083061d75f6655771bde377f96aadad19b21c6 0001-MAINTAINERS-add-a-separate-list-for-those-with-push-.patch > >> From 5c353412a25fd46c5077e5cf92ddfd6532eb46cb Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001 > >> From: Lynne <dev@lynne.ee> > >> Date: Thu, 15 Dec 2022 02:05:00 +0100 > >> Subject: [PATCH] MAINTAINERS: add a separate list for those with push access > >> > >> This list is incomplete, and just contains those I could remember > >> while looking at the recent git log. > >> We may complete the list at a later date. > >> > >> This makes it such that those who add themselves to MAINTAINERS do not > >> get push access by default, but rather, they have to request it > >> explicitly in a different commit. > >> > >> This used to be the situation > >> before it was changed at the start of this year. > >> > > > > I remember no such change. > > What i do remember is really long ago trying to push people toward pushing in > > their own repository and sending pull requests similar to the kernel. But this > > was not popular so i droped the idea. > > > > Whereever code is maintained teh maintainer should have write access to that > > place other things become inconvenient quickly. > > > > maintainers who cannot change the code they maintain should stay an exception > > > > This is exactly what changed. Before, maintainers who didn't get push > access was the norm, not the standard. > > Regardless, if you agree with the patch, I see no reason to continue discussing this. I see the need to reach some approximate consensus on the past because making decissions should not be based on misremembering things. I see that in 2015 the GSOC students who got added to MAINTAINERs also got write access in 2015. and IIRC x264 had a similar policy at the time where students would be treated like any other developer and have equal access. I use this as an example because several of these students came and left after their project and still got write access. Maybe all our memories are not 100% exact after so many years but I think you misremember if you think we had alot of maintainers who did not have the same acccess there where some exceptions but they where few. Also some people like the students in the example above, left they did not use their write access so maybe people forgot they had write access Thanks [...]
Dec 16, 2022, 23:05 by michael@niedermayer.cc: > On Fri, Dec 16, 2022 at 12:26:58AM +0100, Lynne wrote: > >> Dec 15, 2022, 20:34 by michael@niedermayer.cc: >> >> > On Thu, Dec 15, 2022 at 02:13:49AM +0100, Lynne wrote: >> > >> >> This list is incomplete, and just contains those I could see >> >> while looking at the recent git log. If it looks like I've forgotten you, I definitely haven't! >> >> We may complete the list at a later date. >> >> >> >> This makes it such that those who add themselves to MAINTAINERS do not >> >> get push access by default, but rather, they have to request it >> >> explicitly in a different commit. This used to be the situation >> >> before it was changed at the start of this year and is pretty much what >> >> everyone expects. >> >> >> >> Patch attached. >> >> >> >> MAINTAINERS | 15 +++++++++++++++ >> >> 1 file changed, 15 insertions(+) >> >> 6a083061d75f6655771bde377f96aadad19b21c6 0001-MAINTAINERS-add-a-separate-list-for-those-with-push-.patch >> >> From 5c353412a25fd46c5077e5cf92ddfd6532eb46cb Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001 >> >> From: Lynne <dev@lynne.ee> >> >> Date: Thu, 15 Dec 2022 02:05:00 +0100 >> >> Subject: [PATCH] MAINTAINERS: add a separate list for those with push access >> >> >> >> This list is incomplete, and just contains those I could remember >> >> while looking at the recent git log. >> >> We may complete the list at a later date. >> >> >> >> This makes it such that those who add themselves to MAINTAINERS do not >> >> get push access by default, but rather, they have to request it >> >> explicitly in a different commit. >> >> >> >> This used to be the situation >> >> before it was changed at the start of this year. >> >> >> > >> > I remember no such change. >> > What i do remember is really long ago trying to push people toward pushing in >> > their own repository and sending pull requests similar to the kernel. But this >> > was not popular so i droped the idea. >> > >> > Whereever code is maintained teh maintainer should have write access to that >> > place other things become inconvenient quickly. >> > >> > maintainers who cannot change the code they maintain should stay an exception >> > >> >> This is exactly what changed. Before, maintainers who didn't get push >> access was the norm, not the standard. >> >> Regardless, if you agree with the patch, I see no reason to continue discussing this. >> > > I see the need to reach some approximate consensus on the past because making > decissions should not be based on misremembering things. > > I see that in 2015 the GSOC students who got added to MAINTAINERs > also got write access in 2015. > and IIRC x264 had a similar policy at the time where students would be treated like > any other developer and have equal access. > > I use this as an example because several of these students came and left after > their project and still got write access. > > Maybe all our memories are not 100% exact after so many years but I think you misremember > if you think we had alot of maintainers who did not have the same acccess > there where some exceptions but they where few. > Also some people like the students in the example above, left they did not use their write > access so maybe people forgot they had write access > I don't object to students having push access and being treated like developers, I think that's beneficial. I don't mind them leaving and still having write access either. My concern are the drive-by developers who drop a patchset and want to get added to MAINTAINERS to voice their opinions on future patches for their code. Most of them do not want push access, they just want to be consulted if their code has any changes outstanding. Regardless of what you think the policy has been or is, most developers I've spoken to about this see the MAINTAINERS list as an informative list, not as a write access request, and I think so as well. This patch just makes it explicit whether someone wants write access or just maintainership.
Dec 18, 2022, 07:31 by dev@lynne.ee: > Dec 16, 2022, 23:05 by michael@niedermayer.cc: > >> On Fri, Dec 16, 2022 at 12:26:58AM +0100, Lynne wrote: >> >>> Dec 15, 2022, 20:34 by michael@niedermayer.cc: >>> >>> > On Thu, Dec 15, 2022 at 02:13:49AM +0100, Lynne wrote: >>> > >>> >> This list is incomplete, and just contains those I could see >>> >> while looking at the recent git log. If it looks like I've forgotten you, I definitely haven't! >>> >> We may complete the list at a later date. >>> >> >>> >> This makes it such that those who add themselves to MAINTAINERS do not >>> >> get push access by default, but rather, they have to request it >>> >> explicitly in a different commit. This used to be the situation >>> >> before it was changed at the start of this year and is pretty much what >>> >> everyone expects. >>> >> >>> >> Patch attached. >>> >> >>> >> MAINTAINERS | 15 +++++++++++++++ >>> >> 1 file changed, 15 insertions(+) >>> >> 6a083061d75f6655771bde377f96aadad19b21c6 0001-MAINTAINERS-add-a-separate-list-for-those-with-push-.patch >>> >> From 5c353412a25fd46c5077e5cf92ddfd6532eb46cb Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001 >>> >> From: Lynne <dev@lynne.ee> >>> >> Date: Thu, 15 Dec 2022 02:05:00 +0100 >>> >> Subject: [PATCH] MAINTAINERS: add a separate list for those with push access >>> >> >>> >> This list is incomplete, and just contains those I could remember >>> >> while looking at the recent git log. >>> >> We may complete the list at a later date. >>> >> >>> >> This makes it such that those who add themselves to MAINTAINERS do not >>> >> get push access by default, but rather, they have to request it >>> >> explicitly in a different commit. >>> >> >>> >> This used to be the situation >>> >> before it was changed at the start of this year. >>> >> >>> > >>> > I remember no such change. >>> > What i do remember is really long ago trying to push people toward pushing in >>> > their own repository and sending pull requests similar to the kernel. But this >>> > was not popular so i droped the idea. >>> > >>> > Whereever code is maintained teh maintainer should have write access to that >>> > place other things become inconvenient quickly. >>> > >>> > maintainers who cannot change the code they maintain should stay an exception >>> > >>> >>> This is exactly what changed. Before, maintainers who didn't get push >>> access was the norm, not the standard. >>> >>> Regardless, if you agree with the patch, I see no reason to continue discussing this. >>> >> >> I see the need to reach some approximate consensus on the past because making >> decissions should not be based on misremembering things. >> >> I see that in 2015 the GSOC students who got added to MAINTAINERs >> also got write access in 2015. >> and IIRC x264 had a similar policy at the time where students would be treated like >> any other developer and have equal access. >> >> I use this as an example because several of these students came and left after >> their project and still got write access. >> >> Maybe all our memories are not 100% exact after so many years but I think you misremember >> if you think we had alot of maintainers who did not have the same acccess >> there where some exceptions but they where few. >> Also some people like the students in the example above, left they did not use their write >> access so maybe people forgot they had write access >> > > I don't object to students having push access and being treated like developers, > I think that's beneficial. I don't mind them leaving and still having write access either. > My concern are the drive-by developers who drop a patchset and want to get > added to MAINTAINERS to voice their opinions on future patches for their code. > Most of them do not want push access, they just want to be consulted if their code > has any changes outstanding. > > Regardless of what you think the policy has been or is, most developers I've spoken > to about this see the MAINTAINERS list as an informative list, not as a write > access request, and I think so as well. This patch just makes it explicit whether > someone wants write access or just maintainership. > Pushing this in 3 days unless anyone objects.
On 1/29/23 18:14, Lynne wrote: > Dec 18, 2022, 07:31 by dev@lynne.ee: > > Pushing this in 3 days unless anyone objects. > _______________________________________________ I recently gained push access. I don't object to this commit as-is, although if you can change it to include my name as well that'd be appreciated. - Leo Izen (thebombzen)
On 2023-01-30 09:14 am, Leo Izen wrote: > > > On 1/29/23 18:14, Lynne wrote: >> Dec 18, 2022, 07:31 by dev@lynne.ee: >> >> Pushing this in 3 days unless anyone objects. >> _______________________________________________ > > I recently gained push access. I don't object to this commit as-is, > although if you can change it to include my name as well that'd be > appreciated. Mine too. Regards, Gyan
On 1/29/23 10:59 PM, Gyan Doshi wrote: > > > On 2023-01-30 09:14 am, Leo Izen wrote: >> >> >> On 1/29/23 18:14, Lynne wrote: >>> Dec 18, 2022, 07:31 by dev@lynne.ee: >>> >>> Pushing this in 3 days unless anyone objects. >>> _______________________________________________ >> >> I recently gained push access. I don't object to this commit as-is, >> although if you can change it to include my name as well that'd be >> appreciated. > > Mine too. > Ditto.
On Thu, Dec 15, 2022 at 02:13:49AM +0100, Lynne wrote: > This list is incomplete, and just contains those I could see > while looking at the recent git log. If it looks like I've forgotten you, I definitely haven't! > We may complete the list at a later date. > > This makes it such that those who add themselves to MAINTAINERS do not > get push access by default, but rather, they have to request it > explicitly in a different commit. This used to be the situation > before it was changed at the start of this year and is pretty much what > everyone expects. > > Patch attached. > > MAINTAINERS | 15 +++++++++++++++ > 1 file changed, 15 insertions(+) > 6a083061d75f6655771bde377f96aadad19b21c6 0001-MAINTAINERS-add-a-separate-list-for-those-with-push-.patch > From 5c353412a25fd46c5077e5cf92ddfd6532eb46cb Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001 > From: Lynne <dev@lynne.ee> > Date: Thu, 15 Dec 2022 02:05:00 +0100 > Subject: [PATCH] MAINTAINERS: add a separate list for those with push access > > This list is incomplete, and just contains those I could remember > while looking at the recent git log. > We may complete the list at a later date. > > This makes it such that those who add themselves to MAINTAINERS do not > get push access by default, but rather, they have to request it > explicitly in a different commit. This used to be the situation > before it was changed at the start of this year. I dont object to you adding a list of people with commit acccess though i dont think its needed or that useful. But adding a list that is incomplete, sorted in a odd way and doing so in a commit that states a past rule which i dont think was true, seems not ideal ATM there are I think 117 keys that have write access (some may belong to the same developers) and also over 100 maintainers in that MAINTAINERs file I think. I didnt try to count them too precisely. But the numbers are not that disimilar. The added list is quite abit more different Also iam not sure this commit will change that much. People who do not want write access neither before nor afterwards will not send a ssh key so wont get write access. And people who want write access will push for it and probably noone will object. Theres the between people who dont push for it and noone else would push either they might no longer receive write access. Iam not sure if that is better. It makes things more involved but whats really bad is that this extra step is mainly in your mind, its not docuemnted. Do i add someone to that new list when i give him write access or do i give someone write access when a patch adding her is approved. Or do i just ignore that list because its incomplete anyway ? I assume the intend is the 2nd one but How would a contributor know to add herself to that list and what about people who are quite humble and who would not push for it yet at the same time would benefit from write access ? ATM every maintainer automatically receives the right for write access After this patch its made more difficult, i cant just post a patch adding random people either Someone would have to convince them first that they should post a patch to add themselfs. So what i really dislike on this change is the potential stumbling blocks it throws before new developers. Its important that one has write access to the repository one works in In FFmpeg that work happens on git master so write access to that is important for anyone actively working on it. In other places work and review might happen in developers own repositories and they get merged regularly. In that case write access to master is not needed Thanks [...]
Jan 30, 2023, 17:49 by michael@niedermayer.cc: > On Thu, Dec 15, 2022 at 02:13:49AM +0100, Lynne wrote: > >> This list is incomplete, and just contains those I could see >> while looking at the recent git log. If it looks like I've forgotten you, I definitely haven't! >> We may complete the list at a later date. >> >> This makes it such that those who add themselves to MAINTAINERS do not >> get push access by default, but rather, they have to request it >> explicitly in a different commit. This used to be the situation >> before it was changed at the start of this year and is pretty much what >> everyone expects. >> >> Patch attached. >> >> MAINTAINERS | 15 +++++++++++++++ >> 1 file changed, 15 insertions(+) >> 6a083061d75f6655771bde377f96aadad19b21c6 0001-MAINTAINERS-add-a-separate-list-for-those-with-push-.patch >> From 5c353412a25fd46c5077e5cf92ddfd6532eb46cb Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001 >> From: Lynne <dev@lynne.ee> >> Date: Thu, 15 Dec 2022 02:05:00 +0100 >> Subject: [PATCH] MAINTAINERS: add a separate list for those with push access >> >> This list is incomplete, and just contains those I could remember >> while looking at the recent git log. >> We may complete the list at a later date. >> >> This makes it such that those who add themselves to MAINTAINERS do not >> get push access by default, but rather, they have to request it >> explicitly in a different commit. This used to be the situation >> before it was changed at the start of this year. >> > > I dont object to you adding a list of people with commit acccess though i > dont think its needed or that useful. > But adding a list that is incomplete, sorted in a odd way and doing so in a > commit that states a past rule which i dont think was true, seems not > ideal > > ATM there are I think 117 keys that have write access (some may belong to > the same developers) and also over 100 maintainers in that MAINTAINERs file > I think. I didnt try to count them too precisely. But the numbers are not > that disimilar. The added list is quite abit more different > My intention was to make this complete after it's accepted (or not, if someone doesn't want to be known for having push access). > Also iam not sure this commit will change that much. People who do not want > write access neither before nor afterwards will not send a ssh key so wont get > write access. And people who want write access will push for it and > probably noone will object. Theres the between people who dont push for > it and noone else would push either they might no longer receive write > access. Iam not sure if that is better. > > It makes things more involved but whats really bad is that this extra > step is mainly in your mind, its not docuemnted. > Do i add someone to that new list when i give him write access or do > i give someone write access when a patch adding her is approved. Or do > i just ignore that list because its incomplete anyway ? > > I assume the intend is the 2nd one but How would a contributor know > to add herself to that list and what about people who are quite humble > and who would not push for it yet at the same time would benefit from > write access ? > How would anyone know to maintain something they should add themselves to the list of maintainers? A second list of those with push access doesn't add more roadblocks, it's just a separate list, that's all. You wouldn't have to add yourself to maintainers to get push access if you don't want to. As for those humble, I do see your point, but it's a one-line diff change, and it can be done in the same commit adding yourself to maintainers, it's not a 2-page personal statement about values. > ATM every maintainer automatically receives the right for write access > After this patch its made more difficult, i cant just post a patch adding > random people either Someone would have to convince them first that they > should post a patch to add themselfs. > > So what i really dislike on this change is the potential stumbling blocks > it throws before new developers. > > Its important that one has write access to the repository one works in > In FFmpeg that work happens on git master so write access to that is > important for anyone actively working on it. > In other places work and review might happen in developers own repositories > and they get merged regularly. In that case write access to master is not needed >
Jan 30, 2023, 20:03 by dev@lynne.ee: > Jan 30, 2023, 17:49 by michael@niedermayer.cc: > >> On Thu, Dec 15, 2022 at 02:13:49AM +0100, Lynne wrote: >> >>> This list is incomplete, and just contains those I could see >>> while looking at the recent git log. If it looks like I've forgotten you, I definitely haven't! >>> We may complete the list at a later date. >>> >>> This makes it such that those who add themselves to MAINTAINERS do not >>> get push access by default, but rather, they have to request it >>> explicitly in a different commit. This used to be the situation >>> before it was changed at the start of this year and is pretty much what >>> everyone expects. >>> >>> Patch attached. >>> >>> MAINTAINERS | 15 +++++++++++++++ >>> 1 file changed, 15 insertions(+) >>> 6a083061d75f6655771bde377f96aadad19b21c6 0001-MAINTAINERS-add-a-separate-list-for-those-with-push-.patch >>> From 5c353412a25fd46c5077e5cf92ddfd6532eb46cb Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001 >>> From: Lynne <dev@lynne.ee> >>> Date: Thu, 15 Dec 2022 02:05:00 +0100 >>> Subject: [PATCH] MAINTAINERS: add a separate list for those with push access >>> >>> This list is incomplete, and just contains those I could remember >>> while looking at the recent git log. >>> We may complete the list at a later date. >>> >>> This makes it such that those who add themselves to MAINTAINERS do not >>> get push access by default, but rather, they have to request it >>> explicitly in a different commit. This used to be the situation >>> before it was changed at the start of this year. >>> >> >> I dont object to you adding a list of people with commit acccess though i >> dont think its needed or that useful. >> But adding a list that is incomplete, sorted in a odd way and doing so in a >> commit that states a past rule which i dont think was true, seems not >> ideal >> >> ATM there are I think 117 keys that have write access (some may belong to >> the same developers) and also over 100 maintainers in that MAINTAINERs file >> I think. I didnt try to count them too precisely. But the numbers are not >> that disimilar. The added list is quite abit more different >> > > My intention was to make this complete after it's accepted (or not, if > someone doesn't want to be known for having push access). > > >> Also iam not sure this commit will change that much. People who do not want >> write access neither before nor afterwards will not send a ssh key so wont get >> write access. And people who want write access will push for it and >> probably noone will object. Theres the between people who dont push for >> it and noone else would push either they might no longer receive write >> access. Iam not sure if that is better. >> >> It makes things more involved but whats really bad is that this extra >> step is mainly in your mind, its not docuemnted. >> Do i add someone to that new list when i give him write access or do >> i give someone write access when a patch adding her is approved. Or do >> i just ignore that list because its incomplete anyway ? >> >> I assume the intend is the 2nd one but How would a contributor know >> to add herself to that list and what about people who are quite humble >> and who would not push for it yet at the same time would benefit from >> write access ? >> > > How would anyone know to maintain something they should add themselves > to the list of maintainers? > A second list of those with push access doesn't add more roadblocks, it's > just a separate list, that's all. You wouldn't have to add yourself to maintainers > to get push access if you don't want to. > As for those humble, I do see your point, but it's a one-line diff change, > and it can be done in the same commit adding yourself to maintainers, > it's not a 2-page personal statement about values. > > >> ATM every maintainer automatically receives the right for write access >> After this patch its made more difficult, i cant just post a patch adding >> random people either Someone would have to convince them first that they >> should post a patch to add themselfs. >> >> So what i really dislike on this change is the potential stumbling blocks >> it throws before new developers. >> >> Its important that one has write access to the repository one works in >> In FFmpeg that work happens on git master so write access to that is >> important for anyone actively working on it. >> In other places work and review might happen in developers own repositories >> and they get merged regularly. In that case write access to master is not needed >> At the FOSDEM meeting yesterday, everyone there agreed that while it's not perfect, it's a step in the right direction, and we should merge this.
On 2/6/2023 12:10 PM, Lynne wrote: > At the FOSDEM meeting yesterday, everyone there agreed that while it's not > perfect, it's a step in the right direction, and we should merge this. (I have no opinion re: merging.) Is it not possible to audit/list who has git push access instead of guessing? This kind of comes back to what we discussed at the December dev meeting - we don't even know who has access to our infra... that is insane. - Derek
On Mon, Feb 06, 2023 at 01:10:06PM +0100, Lynne wrote: > Jan 30, 2023, 20:03 by dev@lynne.ee: > > > Jan 30, 2023, 17:49 by michael@niedermayer.cc: > > > >> On Thu, Dec 15, 2022 at 02:13:49AM +0100, Lynne wrote: > >> > >>> This list is incomplete, and just contains those I could see > >>> while looking at the recent git log. If it looks like I've forgotten you, I definitely haven't! > >>> We may complete the list at a later date. > >>> > >>> This makes it such that those who add themselves to MAINTAINERS do not > >>> get push access by default, but rather, they have to request it > >>> explicitly in a different commit. This used to be the situation > >>> before it was changed at the start of this year and is pretty much what > >>> everyone expects. > >>> > >>> Patch attached. > >>> > >>> MAINTAINERS | 15 +++++++++++++++ > >>> 1 file changed, 15 insertions(+) > >>> 6a083061d75f6655771bde377f96aadad19b21c6 0001-MAINTAINERS-add-a-separate-list-for-those-with-push-.patch > >>> From 5c353412a25fd46c5077e5cf92ddfd6532eb46cb Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001 > >>> From: Lynne <dev@lynne.ee> > >>> Date: Thu, 15 Dec 2022 02:05:00 +0100 > >>> Subject: [PATCH] MAINTAINERS: add a separate list for those with push access > >>> > >>> This list is incomplete, and just contains those I could remember > >>> while looking at the recent git log. > >>> We may complete the list at a later date. > >>> > >>> This makes it such that those who add themselves to MAINTAINERS do not > >>> get push access by default, but rather, they have to request it > >>> explicitly in a different commit. This used to be the situation > >>> before it was changed at the start of this year. > >>> > >> > >> I dont object to you adding a list of people with commit acccess though i > >> dont think its needed or that useful. > >> But adding a list that is incomplete, sorted in a odd way and doing so in a > >> commit that states a past rule which i dont think was true, seems not > >> ideal > >> > >> ATM there are I think 117 keys that have write access (some may belong to > >> the same developers) and also over 100 maintainers in that MAINTAINERs file > >> I think. I didnt try to count them too precisely. But the numbers are not > >> that disimilar. The added list is quite abit more different > >> > > > > My intention was to make this complete after it's accepted (or not, if > > someone doesn't want to be known for having push access). > > > > > >> Also iam not sure this commit will change that much. People who do not want > >> write access neither before nor afterwards will not send a ssh key so wont get > >> write access. And people who want write access will push for it and > >> probably noone will object. Theres the between people who dont push for > >> it and noone else would push either they might no longer receive write > >> access. Iam not sure if that is better. > >> > >> It makes things more involved but whats really bad is that this extra > >> step is mainly in your mind, its not docuemnted. > >> Do i add someone to that new list when i give him write access or do > >> i give someone write access when a patch adding her is approved. Or do > >> i just ignore that list because its incomplete anyway ? > >> > >> I assume the intend is the 2nd one but How would a contributor know > >> to add herself to that list and what about people who are quite humble > >> and who would not push for it yet at the same time would benefit from > >> write access ? > >> > > > > How would anyone know to maintain something they should add themselves > > to the list of maintainers? > > A second list of those with push access doesn't add more roadblocks, it's > > just a separate list, that's all. You wouldn't have to add yourself to maintainers > > to get push access if you don't want to. > > As for those humble, I do see your point, but it's a one-line diff change, > > and it can be done in the same commit adding yourself to maintainers, > > it's not a 2-page personal statement about values. > > > > > >> ATM every maintainer automatically receives the right for write access > >> After this patch its made more difficult, i cant just post a patch adding > >> random people either Someone would have to convince them first that they > >> should post a patch to add themselfs. > >> > >> So what i really dislike on this change is the potential stumbling blocks > >> it throws before new developers. > >> > >> Its important that one has write access to the repository one works in > >> In FFmpeg that work happens on git master so write access to that is > >> important for anyone actively working on it. > >> In other places work and review might happen in developers own repositories > >> and they get merged regularly. In that case write access to master is not needed > >> > > At the FOSDEM meeting yesterday, everyone there agreed that while it's not > perfect, it's a step in the right direction, and we should merge this. Well, i was not there and i do not know what was said, also i dont think the issues have been addressed The commit message implies a past policy which is not correct and commit messages can not be corrected later so it should be corrected first. Also if the intend is that people need to add themselfs to the git list in the MAINTAINERS file to get write access then this should be written in the MAINTAINERS file and also somewhete in the policy, maybe the patch checklist. implied only by a commit message, i think it will be missed Still i think this change is not a good idea. I think maintainership and git access should be closely tied together. Not choosen one by one Just to clarify, i dont mind at all to docuemnt properly who has git access exactly (which may differ slightly) but the idea someone would be a active maintainer and work / want to work but not be given git access really feels like a bad idea to me. Also this whole makes the process more complex thx [...]
On Mon, Feb 06, 2023 at 02:49:19PM +0000, Derek Buitenhuis wrote: > On 2/6/2023 12:10 PM, Lynne wrote: > > At the FOSDEM meeting yesterday, everyone there agreed that while it's not > > perfect, it's a step in the right direction, and we should merge this. > > (I have no opinion re: merging.) > > Is it not possible to audit/list who has git push access instead of guessing? I will send you (and any other developer who wants) the list of git user names who have write access I am slightly hesitant to post this list publically as its not really what people want and posting any username lists may have other "uses" Also there are people in this list who have not been active in ffmpeg git and iam not sure if they agree to be listed publically thx [...]
> 2023年1月30日 12:22，Stephen Hutchinson <qyot27@gmail.com> 写道： > > On 1/29/23 10:59 PM, Gyan Doshi wrote: >> On 2023-01-30 09:14 am, Leo Izen wrote: >>> >>> >>> On 1/29/23 18:14, Lynne wrote: >>>> Dec 18, 2022, 07:31 by dev@lynne.ee: >>>> >>>> Pushing this in 3 days unless anyone objects. >>>> _______________________________________________ >>> >>> I recently gained push access. I don't object to this commit as-is, although if you can change it to include my name as well that'd be appreciated. >> Mine too. > > Ditto. Ditto. Thanks Steven Liu
From 5c353412a25fd46c5077e5cf92ddfd6532eb46cb Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001 From: Lynne <dev@lynne.ee> Date: Thu, 15 Dec 2022 02:05:00 +0100 Subject: [PATCH] MAINTAINERS: add a separate list for those with push access This list is incomplete, and just contains those I could remember while looking at the recent git log. We may complete the list at a later date. This makes it such that those who add themselves to MAINTAINERS do not get push access by default, but rather, they have to request it explicitly in a different commit. This used to be the situation before it was changed at the start of this year. --- MAINTAINERS | 15 +++++++++++++++ 1 file changed, 15 insertions(+) diff --git a/MAINTAINERS b/MAINTAINERS index 48e2ec4fd4..f03327702a 100644 --- a/MAINTAINERS +++ b/MAINTAINERS @@ -552,6 +552,21 @@ ADI/Blackfin DSP Marc Hoffman Sparc Roman Shaposhnik OS/2 KO Myung-Hun +Developers with git write access +================================ +Paul B Mahol +Michael Niedermayer +James Almer +Lynne +Martin Storsjo +Hendrik Leppkes +Philip Langdale +Clément Bœsch +Niklas Haas +Timo Rothenpieler +Andreas Rheinhardt +Ronald Bultje +(this list is incomplete) Developers with git write access who are currently not maintaining any specific part ==================================================================================== -- 2.38.1