From: Conor Dooley <conor@kernel.org>
To: Jakub Kicinski <kuba@kernel.org>
Cc: corbet@lwn.net, Andrew Lunn <andrew@lunn.ch>,
Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@linuxfoundation.org>,
Krzysztof Kozlowski <krzk@kernel.org>,
Mark Brown <broonie@kernel.org>,
Leon Romanovsky <leonro@nvidia.com>,
workflows@vger.kernel.org, linux-doc@vger.kernel.org,
linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, netdev@vger.kernel.org,
linux@leemhuis.info, kvalo@kernel.org,
benjamin.poirier@gmail.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH docs v3] docs: maintainer: document expectations of small time maintainers
Date: Thu, 20 Jul 2023 16:15:26 +0100 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20230720-proxy-smile-f1b882906ded@spud> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20230719183225.1827100-1-kuba@kernel.org>
[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 2448 bytes --]
Hey,
On Wed, Jul 19, 2023 at 11:32:25AM -0700, Jakub Kicinski wrote:
> We appear to have a gap in our process docs. We go into detail
> on how to contribute code to the kernel, and how to be a subsystem
> maintainer. I can't find any docs directed towards the thousands
> of small scale maintainers, like folks maintaining a single driver
> or a single network protocol.
>
> Document our expectations and best practices. I'm hoping this doc
> will be particularly useful to set expectations with HW vendors.
Thanks for writing this up, it's great to have this stuff written down.
I had one minor comment from reading through things...
> +Responsibilities
> +================
> +
> +The amount of maintenance work is usually proportional to the size
> +and popularity of the code base. Small features and drivers should
> +require relatively small amount of care and feeding. Nonetheless
> +when the work does arrive (in form of patches which need review,
> +user bug reports etc.) it has to be acted upon promptly.
> +Even when a particular driver only sees one patch a month, or a quarter,
> +a subsystem could well have a hundred such drivers. Subsystem
> +maintainers cannot afford to wait a long time to hear from reviewers.
> +
> +The exact expectations on the response time will vary by subsystem.
> +The patch review SLA the subsystem had set for itself can sometimes
> +be found in the subsystem documentation. Failing that as a rule of thumb
> +reviewers should try to respond quicker than what is the usual patch
> +review delay of the subsystem maintainer. The resulting expectations
> +may range from two working days for fast-paced subsystems (e.g. networking)
> +to as long as a few weeks in slower moving parts of the kernel.
> +
> +Mailing list participation
> +--------------------------
> +Reviews
> +-------
> +Refactoring and core changes
> +----------------------------
> +Bug reports
> +-----------
..I noticed that none of these sections address actually testing the
code they're responsible for on a (semi-)regular basis. Sure, that comes
as part of reviewing the patches for their code, but changes to other
subsystems that a driver/feature maintainer probably would not have been
CCed on may cause problems for the code they maintain.
If we are adding a doc about best-practice for maintainers, I think we
should be encouraging people to test regularly.
[-- Attachment #2: signature.asc --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 228 bytes --]
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2023-07-20 15:15 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 11+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2023-07-19 18:32 [PATCH docs v3] docs: maintainer: document expectations of small time maintainers Jakub Kicinski
2023-07-20 15:15 ` Conor Dooley [this message]
2023-07-20 21:37 ` Jakub Kicinski
2023-07-20 22:23 ` Conor Dooley
2023-07-20 18:23 ` Edward Cree
2023-07-20 18:26 ` Greg Kroah-Hartman
2023-07-20 18:31 ` Mark Brown
2023-07-20 21:42 ` Jakub Kicinski
2023-07-21 7:46 ` Martin Habets
2023-07-21 8:38 ` Simon Horman
2023-07-21 19:53 ` Jonathan Corbet
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=20230720-proxy-smile-f1b882906ded@spud \
--to=conor@kernel.org \
--cc=andrew@lunn.ch \
--cc=benjamin.poirier@gmail.com \
--cc=broonie@kernel.org \
--cc=corbet@lwn.net \
--cc=gregkh@linuxfoundation.org \
--cc=krzk@kernel.org \
--cc=kuba@kernel.org \
--cc=kvalo@kernel.org \
--cc=leonro@nvidia.com \
--cc=linux-doc@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux@leemhuis.info \
--cc=netdev@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=workflows@vger.kernel.org \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox;
as well as URLs for NNTP newsgroup(s).