linux-next: ground rules

linux-next: ground rules

[Stephen Rothwell]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1793 bytes --]

[This email has been bcc'd to all the current contributors to
linux-next.  No response is required unless you have some issue with the
following.]

Thanks for being a participant of linux-next.  I have been asked by my 
employer to send you this e-mail summarizing these "ground rules" for the 
project:

The linux-next integration testing is not a judgment of your code.  The 
purpose of linux-next is for integration testing and to lower the impact 
of conflicts between subsystems in the next merge window. 

You need to ensure that the patches/commits in your tree/series have been:
     * submitted under GPL v2 (or later) and include the Contributor's
	Signed-off-by,
     * posted to the relevant mailing list,
     * reviewed by you (or another maintainer of your subsystem tree),
     * successfully unit tested, and 
     * destined for the current or next Linux merge window.

Basically, this should be just what you would send to Linus (or ask him
to fetch).  It is allowed to be rebased if you deem it necessary.

-- 
Cheers,
Stephen Rothwell 
sfr@canb.auug.org.au

Legal Stuff:
By participating in linux-next, your subsystem tree contributions are 
public and will be included in the linux-next trees.  You may be sent 
e-mail messages indicating errors or other issues when the
patches/commits from your subsystem tree are merged and tested in
linux-next.  These messages may also be cross-posted to the linux-next
mailing list, the linux-kernel mailing list, etc.  The linux-next tree
project and IBM (my employer) make no warranties regarding the linux-next
project, the testing procedures, the results, the e-mails, etc.  If you
don't agree to these ground rules, let me know and I'll remove your tree
from participation in linux-next.

[-- Attachment #2: Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 197 bytes --]

Re: linux-next: ground rules

[John W. Linville]

On Fri, Aug 14, 2009 at 06:02:46PM +1000, Stephen Rothwell wrote:
> [This email has been bcc'd to all the current contributors to
> linux-next.  No response is required unless you have some issue with the
> following.]
> 
> Thanks for being a participant of linux-next.  I have been asked by my 
> employer to send you this e-mail summarizing these "ground rules" for the 
> project:
> 
> The linux-next integration testing is not a judgment of your code.  The 
> purpose of linux-next is for integration testing and to lower the impact 
> of conflicts between subsystems in the next merge window. 
> 
> You need to ensure that the patches/commits in your tree/series have been:
>      * submitted under GPL v2 (or later) and include the Contributor's
> 	Signed-off-by,
>      * posted to the relevant mailing list,
>      * reviewed by you (or another maintainer of your subsystem tree),
>      * successfully unit tested, and 
>      * destined for the current or next Linux merge window.
> 
> Basically, this should be just what you would send to Linus (or ask him
> to fetch).  It is allowed to be rebased if you deem it necessary.

ACK (if that helps!)

-- 
John W. Linville		Someday the world will need a hero, and you
linville@tuxdriver.com			might be all we have.  Be ready.

Re: linux-next: ground rules

[James Bottomley]

On Fri, 2009-08-14 at 18:02 +1000, Stephen Rothwell wrote:
> [This email has been bcc'd to all the current contributors to
> linux-next.  No response is required unless you have some issue with the
> following.]
> 
> Thanks for being a participant of linux-next.  I have been asked by my 
> employer to send you this e-mail summarizing these "ground rules" for the 
> project:
> 
> The linux-next integration testing is not a judgment of your code.  The 
> purpose of linux-next is for integration testing and to lower the impact 
> of conflicts between subsystems in the next merge window. 
> 
> You need to ensure that the patches/commits in your tree/series have been:
>      * submitted under GPL v2 (or later) and include the Contributor's
> 	Signed-off-by,
>      * posted to the relevant mailing list,
>      * reviewed by you (or another maintainer of your subsystem tree),
>      * successfully unit tested, and 

The rest are fine, but this one isn't feasible for a driver tree ... I
don't have all the hardware, and people will insist on fixing
theoretical bugs in drivers we can't test on.

A lot of time, bugs turn up in this code only after it has been on
release for several months and the small pool of HW owners actually gets
around to testing it.

Additionally, I have to carry patches on trust for HW I'm never likely
to see outside someones multi-million dollar lab.

>      * destined for the current or next Linux merge window.

James

Re: linux-next: ground rules

[Stephen Rothwell]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1258 bytes --]

Hi James,

On Fri, 14 Aug 2009 08:56:13 -0500 James Bottomley <James.Bottomley@HansenPartnership.com> wrote:
>
> On Fri, 2009-08-14 at 18:02 +1000, Stephen Rothwell wrote:
> > 
> >      * successfully unit tested, and 
> 
> The rest are fine, but this one isn't feasible for a driver tree ... I
> don't have all the hardware, and people will insist on fixing
> theoretical bugs in drivers we can't test on.
> 
> A lot of time, bugs turn up in this code only after it has been on
> release for several months and the small pool of HW owners actually gets
> around to testing it.
> 
> Additionally, I have to carry patches on trust for HW I'm never likely
> to see outside someones multi-million dollar lab.

OK, in the context of linux-next, "successfully unit tested" to me means
that it doesn't break on "reasonable" builds (i.e. x86(_64) allmodconfig
or something similar) and probably won't break if someone tries to use
it.  Clearly, you are correct, you can't test everything.  I guess I just
want to be able to be justifiably annoyed if my builds break for
something obvious (which does happen from time to time :-().

-- 
Cheers,
Stephen Rothwell                    sfr@canb.auug.org.au
http://www.canb.auug.org.au/~sfr/

[-- Attachment #2: Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 197 bytes --]

Re: linux-next: ground rules

[James Bottomley]

On Sat, 2009-08-15 at 01:16 +1000, Stephen Rothwell wrote:
> Hi James,
> 
> On Fri, 14 Aug 2009 08:56:13 -0500 James Bottomley <James.Bottomley@HansenPartnership.com> wrote:
> >
> > On Fri, 2009-08-14 at 18:02 +1000, Stephen Rothwell wrote:
> > > 
> > >      * successfully unit tested, and 
> > 
> > The rest are fine, but this one isn't feasible for a driver tree ... I
> > don't have all the hardware, and people will insist on fixing
> > theoretical bugs in drivers we can't test on.
> > 
> > A lot of time, bugs turn up in this code only after it has been on
> > release for several months and the small pool of HW owners actually gets
> > around to testing it.
> > 
> > Additionally, I have to carry patches on trust for HW I'm never likely
> > to see outside someones multi-million dollar lab.
> 
> OK, in the context of linux-next, "successfully unit tested" to me means
> that it doesn't break on "reasonable" builds (i.e. x86(_64) allmodconfig
> or something similar) and probably won't break if someone tries to use
> it.  Clearly, you are correct, you can't test everything.  I guess I just
> want to be able to be justifiably annoyed if my builds break for
> something obvious (which does happen from time to time :-().

OK, so I can do compile tested for almost everything except s390
drivers ...

James