linux-kernel - Re: [RFC 5/7] Docs: Expectations for bug reporters and maintainers

lists.openwall.net		lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC
Open Source and information security mailing list archives

Hash Suite for Android: free password hash cracker in your pocket

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Date:	Wed, 1 May 2013 16:26:55 +0100
From:	Mark Brown <broonie@...nel.org>
To:	Sarah Sharp <sarah.a.sharp@...ux.intel.com>
Cc:	Rob Landley <rob@...dley.net>, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
	linux-doc@...r.kernel.org,
	Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>
Subject: Re: [RFC 5/7] Docs: Expectations for bug reporters and maintainers

On Wed, Apr 17, 2013 at 11:23:28AM -0700, Sarah Sharp wrote:
> On Tue, Apr 16, 2013 at 09:15:06PM -0500, Rob Landley wrote:

> > Patches go from the developer, to the maintainer, to one of Linus's
> > lieutenants, to Linus himself. If you submit a patch to a maintainer
> > they owe you a response. The lieutenant (subsystem maintainer) owes
> > that maintainer a response, and Linus (the project's architect) owes
> > the lieutenant a response.

> Do we want to go into this much detail in a document meant for
> frustrated bug reporters?  Or perhaps we should create a separate
> document about the kernel maintainer hierarchy and reference it here?

The rule of thumb I tend to give people here is to make sure that the
people who tend to sign off changes to the driver are on the mail.  Not
everyone is comfortable with git but if they are that's fairly easy to
do.

Download attachment "signature.asc" of type "application/pgp-signature" (837 bytes)