06:53 <krzk> arnd: robher: in the past I took many times simple fixes and cleanups for such semi-orphaned platforms, although in 95% of cases these were my patches. But in general this is not sustainable solution and these platforms should have active maintainers.

06:55 <krzk> This is a bit odd to me, they want to keep platform maintained but they don't want to handle the patches...

08:42 <geertu> krzk: And doesn't the reviewer role include providing Reviewed-by tags?

08:42 <krzk> geertu: yes it does and they do

08:54 <javierm> krzk: maybe something that can be done is similar to what we do in DRM, to have a shared repo and many people with commit access

08:55 <javierm> because I can understand that is too cumbersome to maintain a tree for a maintainer who's platform doesn't have that much development and is mostly about fixes

08:56 <javierm> https://drm.pages.freedesktop.org/maintainer-tools/repositories/drm-misc.html

08:58 <ukleinek> from a contributor's POV drm-misc also has it's downsides. When I sent a patch I don't know who to address and ping if the patch doesn't get picked up. Case in point: https://lore.kernel.org/dri-devel/20241008084552.461361-2-u.kleine-koenig@baylibre.com/

08:59 <javierm> ukleinek: yeah, is not perfect. But that's already the case with people pinging krzk by default it seems

08:59 <javierm> ukleinek: about your patch, have you tried pinging mripard or tzimmermann. The folks that are listed as maintainers for drm-misc

09:00 <krzk> javierm: geertu: well, I was taking fixes but I don't really want to take new features because I won't be able to judge their correctness at all. Therefore I could take the platform but mark it as "Odd fixes". Not sure if shared maintainership of such platforms would help - still no one really resopnsible for driving it or managing.

09:01 <javierm> krzk: yeah agree with marking as "Odd fixes" and I understand you don't want to pick maintanance for a random platform

09:01 <javierm> but what I tried to say is that maybe the person who could be reviewer, and also push the patch if there was a shared tree

09:01 <krzk> javierm: I agree here with ukleinek - my many patches for DRM were not picked up because: maintainers of given DRM SoC do not know they should pick up or maintainers require some non-standard effort (e.g. headers in patch or some patch tracking systems) and I actually don't care about these platforms to do the work

09:01 <krzk> Shared maintainerships are the way but too shared is also not good.

09:02 <javierm> krzk: fair. I honestly think that the drm-misc has more upsides than downsides

09:02 <ukleinek> In German there is an interpretation for "TEAM" meaning "Great, someone else does the work" (Toll Ein Anderer Macht's)

09:03 <krzk> javierm: yeah, most likely more upsides, indeed, considering how busy it is

09:03 <javierm> krzk: yeah, agree with ukleinek and you that's not perfect though and there are still many things to improve

09:07 <geertu> ukleinek: There is no "I" in team ;-)

09:07 <geertu> (but usually that meme is used in a different context)

09:16 <ukleinek> ..ooOO(The 'S' in "IOT" stands for Security.)

14:17 <abelloni> geertu: just to be clear, are you ok wuth me taking the m68k patch?

14:22 <geertu> abelloni: Yes I am. Thanks!

14:23 <geertu> In hindsight, I should have provided an Acked-by. But it was not clear whether it would make v6.13 or not.

19:57 <abelloni> geertu: hum, I got a conflict

20:01 <abelloni> I think this is fine, I guess I'll push to -next and we'll see