linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH RFC 1/2] MAINTAINERS: Add "R:" designated-reviewers tag

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: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

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

Date:	Mon, 02 Jun 2014 11:15:53 -0700
From:	Joe Perches <joe@...ches.com>
To:	Josh Boyer <jwboyer@...oraproject.org>
Cc:	Josh Triplett <josh@...htriplett.org>,
	"Paul E. McKenney" <paulmck@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>,
	"Linux-Kernel@...r. Kernel. Org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
	Ingo Molnar <mingo@...nel.org>, laijs@...fujitsu.com,
	dipankar@...ibm.com, Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
	Mathieu Desnoyers <mathieu.desnoyers@...icios.com>,
	niv@...ibm.com, Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
	Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>,
	Steven Rostedt <rostedt@...dmis.org>,
	David Howells <dhowells@...hat.com>,
	Eric Dumazet <edumazet@...gle.com>,
	Darren Hart <dvhart@...ux.intel.com>,
	Frédéric Weisbecker <fweisbec@...il.com>,
	oleg@...hat.com, sbw@....edu
Subject: Re: [PATCH RFC 1/2] MAINTAINERS: Add "R:" designated-reviewers tag

On Mon, 2014-06-02 at 14:12 -0400, Josh Boyer wrote:
> On Mon, Jun 2, 2014 at 1:59 PM, Joe Perches <joe@...ches.com> wrote:
> > On Mon, 2014-06-02 at 10:48 -0700, josh@...htriplett.org wrote:
> >> On Mon, Jun 02, 2014 at 10:22:58AM -0700, Joe Perches wrote:
> >> > On Mon, 2014-06-02 at 10:00 -0700, Paul E. McKenney wrote:
> >> > > A ksummit-discuss email thread looked at the difficulty recruiting
> >> > > and retaining reviewers.
> >> >
> >> > []
> >> >
> >> > > Paul Walmsley also noted the need for patch
> >> > > submitters to know who the key reviewers are and suggested adding an
> >> > > "R:" tag to the MAINTAINERS file to record this information on a
> >> > > per-subsystem basis.
> >> >
> >> > I'm not sure of the value of this.
> >> >
> >> > Why not just mark the actual reviewers as maintainers?
> >>
> >> As discussed in the kernel summit discussion, being a regular patch
> >> reviewer isn't the same thing as being *the* maintainer.
> >
> > I think it's not particularly important or valuable
> > here to make that distinction.
> >
> > What real difference does it make?
> 
> It depends.  If the Maintainer moves to a model where patches must be
> reviewed before they are added to the tree, then having a designated
> reviewer helps.  It gives the patch submitter another person to
> include, and if the Reviewer acks a patch, they know it's much more
> likely to make it in-tree.
> 
> If the tree isn't managed that way, then Reviewer/Maintainer is a bit
> less distinctive, but it still provides at least some indication that
> a "maintainer" looked at the patch instead of having it just sit on
> the list.

So effectively, nothing.

--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/