[FFmpeg-devel] [PATCH] MAINTAINERS: add a separate list for those with push access

[Lynne]

Jan 30, 2023, 20:03 by dev at lynne.ee:

> Jan 30, 2023, 17:49 by michael at 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 at 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.