[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <57a7ae11-282f-8b93-355c-4bc839f76b23@metux.net>
Date: Wed, 21 Aug 2019 14:10:13 +0200
From: "Enrico Weigelt, metux IT consult" <lkml@...ux.net>
To: "Theodore Y. Ts'o" <tytso@....edu>,
Sebastian Duda <sebastian.duda@....de>,
Pali Rohár <pali.rohar@...il.com>,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, lukas.bulwahn@...il.com
Subject: Re: Status of Subsystems
On 20.08.19 19:15, Theodore Y. Ts'o wrote:
Hi,
> There are some files which have no official
> owner, and there are also some files which may be modified by more
> than one subsystem.
hmm, wouldn't it be better to alway have explicit maintainers ?
I recall some discussion few weeks ago on some of my patches, where it
turned out that amm acts as fallback for a lot of code that doesn't have
a maintainer.
@Sebastian: maybe you could also create reports for quickly identifying
those cases.
> We certainly don't talk about "inheritance" when we talk about
> maintainers and sub-maintainers.
What's the exact definition of the term "sub-maintainer" ?
Somebody who's maintaining some defined part of something bigger
(eg. a driver within some subsystem, some platform within some
arch, etc) or kinda deputee maintainer ?
> Furthermore, the relationships,
> processes, and workflows between a particular maintainer and their
> submaintainers can be unique to a particular maintainer.
Can we somehow find some (semi-formal) description for those
relationships and workflows, so it's easier to learn about them
when some is new to some particular area ?
(I'd volounteer maintaining such documentation, if the individual
maintainers feed me the necessary information ;-)).
--mtx
--
Enrico Weigelt, metux IT consult
Free software and Linux embedded engineering
info@...ux.net -- +49-151-27565287
Powered by blists - more mailing lists