Re: [Ksummit-discuss] [MAINTAINER SUMMIT] community management/subsystem governance

From: Leon Romanovsky <leon@kernel.org>
To: Laurent Pinchart <laurent.pinchart@ideasonboard.com>
Cc: James.Bottomley@hansenpartnership.com,
	ksummit-discuss@lists.linuxfoundation.org
Subject: Re: [Ksummit-discuss] [MAINTAINER SUMMIT] community management/subsystem governance
Date: Tue, 11 Sep 2018 13:06:39 +0300	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <20180911100639.GA3142@mtr-leonro.mtl.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <3446025.tlHTe8tT15@avalon>

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 4826 bytes --]

On Tue, Sep 11, 2018 at 12:38:13AM +0300, Laurent Pinchart wrote:
> Hi Sean,
>
> On Tuesday, 11 September 2018 00:09:02 EEST Sean Paul wrote:
> > On Mon, Sep 10, 2018 at 4:15 PM Laurent Pinchart wrote:
> > > On Monday, 10 September 2018 18:13:05 EEST Jiri Kosina wrote:
> > >> On Mon, 10 Sep 2018, James Bottomley wrote:
> > >>>    1. How do reviews happen?  Non email projects tend to have only one
> > >>>       review mechanism (gerrit, github, gitlab, etc.) and stick to it.
> > >>>       Do we want to pick a technology or allow multiple?  I don't
> > >>>       think this is kernel wide, it could be a sybsystem choice.
> > >>
> > >> Yeah, but OTOH even now I've heard a lot of feedback about the irregular
> > >> contributors / newcomers being confused by different subsystems having
> > >> different processess and requirements; and those are basically just
> > >> rather "minor" things currently (bugzilla usage, patchwork usage,
> > >> subscriber-only mailinglists, etc), but it's still enough to confuse the
> > >> hell out of people.
> > >
> > > That's also one of my concerns. The differences between subsystems that
> > > all use an email-based review process can already be confusing, or just
> > > annoying to handle, especially when specific tools are mandated (the DRM
> > > dim tool or the ARM patch system come to mind). I dread to think about
> > > how painful it would be if one subsystem adopted gitlab, another one
> > > gerrit, ...
> >
> > The other way to look at this is as a feature, not a bug. As mentioned
> > upthread, each subsystem is essentially its own oss project at this
> > point, so why keep pretending they're all the same thing?
>
> Subsystems are given lots of freedom in how they implement their development
> process, and many use that freedom, but in the end they are all integrated in
> the same kernel. This works because we have a common communication tool.
>
> > At least in the gitlab/gerrit/github nightmare, the differing contributing
> > rules would be obvious as opposed to implicit as they are today.
>
> And we would lose the common communication tool.

And not only communication tool, but educational tool. Reviews are
performed by email visible to everyone and are supposed to be
lesson-learned for other contributors. In opposite, gerrit-like tools
favor one-to-one discussions.

>
> (And if we went for gerrit, we'd likely lose the majority of developers, but
> that's a separate topic - after having to use gerrit when working on project
> Ara, I now reject any customer project that would force me to use gerrit
> again)

As the one who suffers from internal gerrit and forced to use it,
I fully agree with you and will add that we will lose most reviewers too,
because it simply too much painful to follow and to do random review there.

>
> > > That would also make changes that cross subsystem boundaries a nightmare
> > > to handle. Let's not forget that many developers are not confined within a
> > > single subsystem.
> >
> > Well, yeah, this kind of blows a hole in what I said above. I'm
> > imagining Kees crying out in pain thinking about tree-wide changes in
> > this new world :-).
>
> I had the exact same image :-)

I already suffer from it while submitting patches both to netdev and
RDMA. The difference in coding style alone makes me nervous every time
I get comment for such cross-subsystem patches. I'm pretty sure that it
will be unbelievable hard to work in "multi-tool world".

>
> > That said, there's probably a pretty good middle ground between what
> > we have now and the gitlab utopia.
>
> I believe we all agree there's lots of room for improvement, that's already
> quite positive.
>
> > > On the other hand, I don't really see how switching the whole kernel to
> > > gitlab (or another system) could happen without frustrating a very large
> > > number of developers. We all know how conservative the community tend to
> > > be.
> > >
> > > One possible course of action would be to make the new tools optional and
> > > keep email as a common denominator. That way the old dinosaurs who won't
> > > adopt any tool introducing even the slightest disturbance in their work
> > > flow (it's not pleasant to realize that I may well be one of them) will
> > > still be able to work undisturbed, and all the other developers would be
> > > able to enjoy the myriad of amazing features offered by their tooling of
> > > choice. This would however put an extra burden on the new tools that
> > > would need to have first-class email compatibility. I don't know whether
> > > that would be feasible.
>
> --
> Regards,
>
> Laurent Pinchart
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Ksummit-discuss mailing list
> Ksummit-discuss@lists.linuxfoundation.org
> https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/ksummit-discuss

[-- Attachment #2: signature.asc --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 801 bytes --]