linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH] docs: submitting-patches: Suggest a longer expected time for responses

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] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <68a9bc07-07dc-4e97-ae0e-e0b29c808707@sirena.org.uk>
Date:   Tue, 3 Oct 2023 18:03:02 +0100
From:   Mark Brown <broonie@...nel.org>
To:     Jonathan Corbet <corbet@....net>
Cc:     Javier Martinez Canillas <javier@...hile0.org>,
        workflows@...r.kernel.org, linux-doc@...r.kernel.org,
        linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] docs: submitting-patches: Suggest a longer expected time
 for responses

On Tue, Oct 03, 2023 at 09:33:34AM -0600, Jonathan Corbet wrote:

> I was hoping to see some more comments on this; it is a fairly
> significant change in the expectations we put on our reviewers.  Oh
> well, I've applied it.  I wonder if we should add a note saying to look
> at the maintainer profile for the subsystem in question for more
> specific guidance?  Of course, it would be good to have more of those...

It's the sort of thing that's going to vary quite a lot with things like
the point in the release cycle as well (as the existing text already
gestures towards) plus the complexity of the change, I'm not sure that
setting explicit QoS guarantees is going to work out well.  The list of
variables gets long and complicated, and the more explicit things are
the more likely someone is to be disappointed.

Download attachment "signature.asc" of type "application/pgp-signature" (489 bytes)