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]

Date:   Mon, 17 Jul 2023 09:49:09 +0200
From:   Krzysztof Kozlowski <krzk@...nel.org>
To:     Linux regressions mailing list <regressions@...ts.linux.dev>,
        Jakub Kicinski <kuba@...nel.org>
Cc:     corbet@....net, workflows@...r.kernel.org,
        linux-doc@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
        gregkh@...uxfoundation.org, Mark Brown <broonie@...nel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH docs] docs: maintainer: document expectations of small
 time maintainers

On 15/07/2023 12:31, Linux regression tracking (Thorsten Leemhuis) wrote:
> [CCing other people in the thread]
> How about something like this:
> 
> ```
> Bug reports
> -----------
> 
> Maintainers must ensure severe problems in their code reported to them
> are resolved in a timely manner: security vulnerabilities, regressions,
> compilation errors, data loss, kernel crashes, and bugs of similar scope.
> 
> Maintainers furthermore should respond to reports about other kind of
> bugs as well, if the report is of reasonable quality or indicates a
> problem that might be severe -- especially if they have *Supported*
> status of the codebase in the MAINTAINERS file.

I like mentioning the "Supported" part. We should be a bit more
understanding to all folks who are not paid to do this.

Best regards,
Krzysztof