linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH docs] docs: maintainer: document expectations of small time 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: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

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

Message-ID: <20230714102218.687ee2ea@kernel.org>
Date:   Fri, 14 Jul 2023 10:22:18 -0700
From:   Jakub Kicinski <kuba@...nel.org>
To:     Thorsten Leemhuis <linux@...mhuis.info>
Cc:     corbet@....net, workflows@...r.kernel.org,
        linux-doc@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
        gregkh@...uxfoundation.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH docs] docs: maintainer: document expectations of small
 time maintainers

On Fri, 14 Jul 2023 08:24:38 +0200 Thorsten Leemhuis wrote:
> Also: It's totally normal that commercial vendor contribute basic
> drivers with known problems and missing features (some of which will
> never be implemented). The latter will be considered a "bug" for quite a
> few users that read this. Those suddenly thus might becomes something
> they now "must" fix, which leads to questions: how fast? just in
> mainline, or in stable, too?

If we try to fend off anyone who doesn't understand common meaning 
of words the document will be very long and painful to read.

> All this also opens questions like "what counts as bug report" -- I'd
> assume users that find and read this will expect that a report in
> bugzilla.kernel.org is one maintainers "must" respond to. But I assume
> you only meant bugs reports by mail or in trackers the MAINTAINERS file
> mentions?

I don't want to be too prescriptive, subsystems will vary.

> And overall I don't really like the way how handling of regressions is
> described in that section, as they afaics are expected to be handled
> with a higher priority than bugs.

Me neither, FWIW. I tried a couple of times to weave that information
in but I can't come up with a way of doing that without breaking the
logical flow. Could just be me. Edit to what I sent to Krzysztof would
be appreciated if you have one in mind.