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
| ||
|
Date: Wed, 28 Oct 2015 11:39:32 +0000 From: Lee Jones <lee.jones@...aro.org> To: Javier Martinez Canillas <javier@...hile0.org> Cc: Joe Perches <joe@...ches.com>, Krzysztof Kozlowski <k.kozlowski@...sung.com>, Wolfram Sang <wsa@...-dreams.de>, Linus Walleij <linus.walleij@...aro.org>, Sebastian Reichel <sre@...nel.org>, Linux Kernel <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>, Chanwoo Choi <cw00.choi@...sung.com>, Mark Brown <broonie@...nel.org>, Ben Dooks <ben-linux@...ff.org>, "linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org" <linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org> Subject: Re: [PATCH] MAINTAINERS: Start using the 'reviewer' (R) tag On Wed, 28 Oct 2015, Javier Martinez Canillas wrote: > Hello Joe, > > On Wed, Oct 28, 2015 at 12:06 PM, Joe Perches <joe@...ches.com> wrote: > > On Wed, 2015-10-28 at 11:53 +0100, Javier Martinez Canillas wrote: > >> (Lee) think(s) that the difference between a maintainer and > >> a reviewer is if a branch with fixes / new features are kept and pull > >> requests sent while I think that the difference is the level of > >> involvement someone has with a driver regardless of how patches ends > >> in the subsystem tree (picked directly by subsystem maintainers or > >> sent through pull requests). > >> > >> Is the first time I heard your definition but maybe I'm the one that > >> is wrong so it would be great to get a consensus on that and get it > >> documented somewhere. > > > > I think Lee is over-analyzing. > > > > From MAINTAINERS: > > M: Mail patches to: FullName <address@...ain> > > R: Designated reviewer: FullName <address@...ain> > > These reviewers should be CCed on patches. > > S: Status, one of the following: > > Supported: Someone is actually paid to look after this. > > Maintained: Someone actually looks after it. > > > > "looking after" doesn't mean upstreaming. > > > > Agreed and upstreaming doesn't mean sending pull request, you can for > example upstream the downstream changes for a driver you maintain by > posting patches or ack patches others post and let the subsystem > maintainer to pick those (even if you are listed as the driver > maintainer in MAINTAINERS). > > So by following Lee's definition, then most drivers' maintainers > should not be called maintainers since keeping a tree with patches for > both fixes and new features, sending pull requests, etc is only > justified for drivers that have a lot of changes per release. Is not > worth it for drivers that are in "maintenance mode" where only bugs > are fixed every once in a while or features are seldom added. Exactly right. Although, it looks like M: doesn't even mean Maintainer. If it did, I would have made these points over and over until death (or until I got bored). However, as M: actually means "Mail patches to", there seems to be very little difference between that and "Designated reviewer" and makes me wonder why the R: tag was ever even introduced. I guess all of the other guys in the threads below also thought M: meant Maintainer, or else they would have just added poor old Josh as a "Mail patches to" recipient and been done with it. > > The original threads for this were: > > > > http://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/ksummit-discuss/2014-May/000830.html > > https://lkml.org/lkml/2014/6/2/446 -- Lee Jones Linaro STMicroelectronics Landing Team Lead Linaro.org │ Open source software for ARM SoCs Follow Linaro: Facebook | Twitter | Blog -- 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/
Powered by blists - more mailing lists