[U-Boot-Users] Changes to U-Boot Development Process

Grant Likely
2007-02-01T15:37:03Z

On 2/1/07, Peter.Pearse <peter.pearse@arm.com> wrote:
> Am I on the right lines here?
>
> U-Boot development process
> ==========================
> Gatekeepers have responsibility for some area of U-Boot.
>
> A developer submits a patch via email or requests git pull

I pretty much agree with your flow here, but I would add one thing.

I think *All* patches should go to the mailing list; even gatekeeper
authored ones. It's not the gatekkeepers responsibility to review
every patch, but rather to make sure all patches are reviewed. For
example, if a patch is not contentious and has been Ack'd by someone
he/she trusts, then the gatekeeper can probably merge it without
personally reviewing it.

> [Gatekeepers possibly contend for patch]
> Chosen gatekeeper inspects patch for
> Coding style
> Basic logic
> U-Boot ethos (e.g lowest possible size) **1
> MAKEALL **2
> until satisfied
> [If not rejected]
> Gatekeeper pushes new branch for the patch to the "area git",
> and notifies the user list.
> As well as a short summary the description may include
> Affected board or area
> Suggested tests
> If unable to test sufficiently themselves **2, the gatekeeper request tests
> from specific maintainers and U-Boot users.
> Tests by the original developer are not sufficient.
> Once tests are passed, or some agreed time limit expires **3,
> the gatekeeper requests that the area branch be merged into the main tree.
> [If necessary, patch is reworked to allow merge]

Having a merge window has worked extremely well for the Linux kernel.
Does anyone think the same process is appropriate here?

Cheers,
g.

--
Grant Likely, B.Sc. P.Eng.
Secret Lab Technologies Ltd.
grant.likely at secretlab.ca
(403) 399-0195