linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH docs v2] 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: <CAL_JsqKBbP_dXZCbyKtgXVDMV-0Qp8YLQAXANg+_XSiMxou9vw@mail.gmail.com>
Date:   Wed, 19 Jul 2023 11:54:53 -0600
From:   Rob Herring <robh@...nel.org>
To:     Jakub Kicinski <kuba@...nel.org>
Cc:     corbet@....net, workflows@...r.kernel.org,
        linux-doc@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
        netdev@...r.kernel.org, gregkh@...uxfoundation.org,
        linux@...mhuis.info, broonie@...nel.org, krzk@...nel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH docs v2] docs: maintainer: document expectations of small
 time maintainers

On Tue, Jul 18, 2023 at 10:00 AM Jakub Kicinski <kuba@...nel.org> wrote:
>
> We appear to have a gap in our process docs. We go into detail
> on how to contribute code to the kernel, and how to be a subsystem
> maintainer. I can't find any docs directed towards the thousands
> of small scale maintainers, like folks maintaining a single driver
> or a single network protocol.

I think the split is great. It would be even better if this
distinction could be made in MAINTAINERS and then the tools could use
that. For example, on treewide changes on Cc subsystem maintainers and
skip driver maintainers. The problem right now is Cc'ing everyone
quickly hits maillist moderation for too many recipients.

Rob