From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from smtp.kernel.org (aws-us-west-2-korg-mail-1.web.codeaurora.org [10.30.226.201]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by smtp.subspace.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 12C141BB56 for ; Thu, 20 Jul 2023 21:37:47 +0000 (UTC) Received: by smtp.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id F18DAC433C7; Thu, 20 Jul 2023 21:37:46 +0000 (UTC) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=kernel.org; s=k20201202; t=1689889067; bh=GZUiHqFRIa9kRqFdnfZG76QIb9kkoyd03I0c7rzEtyg=; h=Date:From:To:Cc:Subject:In-Reply-To:References:From; b=FjhNfRFqD9OiPLhgTKdcW4hQ0kZIJhTHZ2NEg/quOHHTaoMtPNoe2XuiAdXjlbQJr 9UAEe1eip8ms1WhUOp6y9/cOoIIlfQm5lbMp90k0a14oSSvvPDe+YhLgLBZEvlk+Mz UdZVfCsS/iDSTIRHRtnYltLW12WLvk3h59LAd8t7RcJ76cF1XbKDQLPHEs8LbuqS1l ocekAft9WQjJ2F/Y3o15wfGmjfDcHuc2ypSLEz+A60jg1fCcN0hkDnE+2QNBuZ9Fy0 0ITe+vyojYkS11bfISx/Za/cuv4RwmNBY+lFESbUITd0OnKLYB0jurnSBxOGUT+Bs1 oHqjgiW89wo7Q== Date: Thu, 20 Jul 2023 14:37:46 -0700 From: Jakub Kicinski To: Conor Dooley Cc: corbet@lwn.net, Andrew Lunn , Greg Kroah-Hartman , Krzysztof Kozlowski , Mark Brown , Leon Romanovsky , 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 Message-ID: <20230720143746.1adb159a@kernel.org> In-Reply-To: <20230720-proxy-smile-f1b882906ded@spud> References: <20230719183225.1827100-1-kuba@kernel.org> <20230720-proxy-smile-f1b882906ded@spud> Precedence: bulk X-Mailing-List: netdev@vger.kernel.org List-Id: List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit On Thu, 20 Jul 2023 16:15:26 +0100 Conor Dooley wrote: > ..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. I think our testing story is too shaky to make that a requirement. Differently put - I was never able to get good upstream testing running when I worked for a vendor myself so I wouldn't know how to draw the lines.