On 12/10/2018 03:37 PM, Andrew Lunn wrote: > On Mon, Dec 10, 2018 at 02:26:51PM +0100, Marek Vasut wrote: >> On 12/08/2018 12:11 PM, Andrew Lunn wrote: >>>> This actually is an individual patch, it doesn't depend on anything. >>>> Or do you mean a series with the DT documentation change ? >>> >>> Yes, i mean together with the DT documentation change. Those two >>> belong together, they are one functional change. >> >> Fine >> >>> Part of this is also to do with scalability. It takes less effort to >>> merge one patchset of two patches, as two individual patches. The >>> truth is, developer time is cheap, maintainer time is expensive >> >> This is _not_ fine and I am actually offended by this statement. >> The way I read this is that maintainer time has more value than >> developer time, which justifies spending the developer time by >> maintainers without having any appreciation for it. I hope I am >> misreading your statement ? > > Hi Marek
Hello Andrew, > Sorry, i was not meaning to be offence. But it is part of the > economics of the Linux Kernel. There are many more developers than > maintainers. There are lots of studies over the years which suggests > there are not enough maintainers, and those maintainers we have are > overloaded. That's understandable, it's not just Linux kernel that's suffering from lack of maintainers. > So the development process is based towards making the > maintainer role easier, by asking the developers to do a bit more > work. Writing easy to review patchsets, adding reviewed by tags to new > versions of patches, including a summary of changes between each > version, meaningful patchset, etc. And this is all fine and normal. > Much of that is to make the > reviewers job, who are mostly maintainers, easier. And to make the job > of people like David, who does the actually merge, easier, scalable to > the number of patches he needs to work on every day. That's also fine by me. Although, a single maintainer cannot scale indefinitely, but that's another discussion altogether. Notice how none of the above implied that someone's time is more important than someone else's. I'll just assume the above is what you wanted to express all along. -- Best regards, Marek Vasut
