Re: [Kgdb-bugreport] [PATCH] MAINTAINERS: kgdb: Replace Jason with Daniel

[Lee Jones]

On Tue, 05 Dec 2017, Jason Wessel wrote:

> On 12/05/2017 08:09 AM, Lee Jones wrote:
> > On Tue, 05 Dec 2017, Daniel Thompson wrote:
> > 
> > > ... with many, many thanks for Jason for all his hard work.
> > > 
> > > Cc: Jason Wessel <jason.wessel@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> > > Signed-off-by: Daniel Thompson <daniel.thompson@xxxxxxxxxx>
> > > ---
> > > 
> > > Notes:
> > >      Over the years Jason has become increasingly hard to get hold off
> > >      and I think he must now be regarded as inactive.
> > >      Patches in kgdb-next (mine as it happens) have been there for over a
> > >      year without a corresponding pull request and a couple of architecture
> > >      specific kgdb fixes have ended up missing a release cycle (or two) as
> > >      the architecture maintainer waits for an Acked-by from Jason.
> > >      In the past I've had to rely on Andrew M. to land my own changes to
> > >      kgdb and in the v4.14 cycle you'll find my Acked-by on b8347c219649
> > >      ("x86/debug: Handle warnings before the notifier chain, to fix KGDB
> > >      crash"). That I was sharing surrogate acks convinced me we need a
> > >      change here and I've offered Jason help via private e-mail without
> > >      reply.
> > >      So, I really would prefer it it if this patch listed me as a
> > >      co-maintainer or, failing that, as least had Jason's blessing... but
> > >      it doesn't. I certainly suggest this patch takes a long time in
> > >      review, and if it doesn't attract Jason's attention then I can only
> > >      reiterate what is says in the commit log: Thanks Jason!
> > > 
> > >   MAINTAINERS | 3 +--
> > >   1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 2 deletions(-)
> > 
> > It looks like Jason has been inactive in all aspects of upstream
> > maintainership and as a contributor for well over a year now.
> 
> I have not been working directly on upstream kernel contributions
> for quite some time.  It doesn't mean I haven't been involved with
> kernel development.  Patches that I have reviewed or suggested to
> other developers generally don't bare my name.  I wouldn't mind
> trying to take a slightly more gradual passing of the baton and add
> Daniel as co-maintainer for a while before I retire from kernel work
> and merge myself away in the coming years. :-) 
> 
> I have a series of 50+ patches for kgdb/kdb/usb which have never
> been published.  I am not saying that we actually need any of those
> patches, but it would be nice to let the community decide, and we
> can see if there is anything worth merging into the next cycle or
> future work with other maintainers.   My kernel.org tree stopped
> working a long time ago, probably from inactivity.  I'll see if that
> can get restored in the next few days, or I'll use my github tree
> and send the unpublished work to the mailing list as an RFC.  And
> for what it is worth if none of this happens by the end of 4.16, by
> all means Daniel has my blessing to be the sole maintainer.

Thanks for your reply Jason.

Sounds like a perfectly reasonable way forward.

-- 
Lee Jones
Linaro STMicroelectronics Landing Team Lead
Linaro.org â Open source software for ARM SoCs
Follow Linaro: Facebook | Twitter | Blog