Message-ID: <20241126151930.GA5493@pendragon.ideasonboard.com>
Date: Tue, 26 Nov 2024 17:19:30 +0200
From: Laurent Pinchart <laurent.pinchart@...asonboard.com>
To: Mauro Carvalho Chehab <mchehab+huawei@...nel.org>
Cc: linux-media@...r.kernel.org, Jonathan Corbet <corbet@....net>,
	linux-doc@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
	workflows@...r.kernel.org, Hans Verkuil <hverkuil@...ll.nl>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] docs: media: document media multi-committers rules and
 process

Hi Mauro and Hans,

On Mon, Nov 25, 2024 at 02:28:58PM +0100, Mauro Carvalho Chehab wrote:
> As the media subsystem will experiment with a multi-committers model,
> update the Maintainer's entry profile to the new rules, and add a file
> documenting the process to become a committer and to maintain such
> rights.
> 
> Signed-off-by: Mauro Carvalho Chehab <mchehab+huawei@...nel.org>
> Signed-off-by: Hans Verkuil <hverkuil@...ll.nl>
> ---
>  Documentation/driver-api/media/index.rst      |   1 +
>  .../media/maintainer-entry-profile.rst        | 193 ++++++++++----
>  .../driver-api/media/media-committer.rst      | 252 ++++++++++++++++++
>  .../process/maintainer-pgp-guide.rst          |   2 +
>  4 files changed, 398 insertions(+), 50 deletions(-)
>  create mode 100644 Documentation/driver-api/media/media-committer.rst
> 
> diff --git a/Documentation/driver-api/media/index.rst b/Documentation/driver-api/media/index.rst
> index d5593182a3f9..d0c725fcbc67 100644
> --- a/Documentation/driver-api/media/index.rst
> +++ b/Documentation/driver-api/media/index.rst
> @@ -26,6 +26,7 @@ Documentation/userspace-api/media/index.rst
>      :numbered:
>  
>      maintainer-entry-profile
> +    media-committer
>  
>      v4l2-core
>      dtv-core
> diff --git a/Documentation/driver-api/media/maintainer-entry-profile.rst b/Documentation/driver-api/media/maintainer-entry-profile.rst
> index ffc712a5f632..90c6c0d9cf17 100644
> --- a/Documentation/driver-api/media/maintainer-entry-profile.rst
> +++ b/Documentation/driver-api/media/maintainer-entry-profile.rst
> @@ -27,19 +27,128 @@ It covers, mainly, the contents of those directories:
>  Both media userspace and Kernel APIs are documented and the documentation
>  must be kept in sync with the API changes. It means that all patches that
>  add new features to the subsystem must also bring changes to the
> -corresponding API files.
> +corresponding API documentation files.

I would have split this kind of small changes to a separate patch to
make reviews easier, but that's not a big deal.

>  
> -Due to the size and wide scope of the media subsystem, media's
> -maintainership model is to have sub-maintainers that have a broad
> -knowledge of a specific aspect of the subsystem. It is the sub-maintainers'
> -task to review the patches, providing feedback to users if the patches are
> +Due to the size and wide scope of the media subsystem, the media's
> +maintainership model is to have committers that have a broad knowledge of
> +a specific aspect of the subsystem. It is the committers' task to
> +review the patches, providing feedback to users if the patches are
>  following the subsystem rules and are properly using the media kernel and
>  userspace APIs.

This sounds really like a maintainer definition. I won't bikeshed too
much on the wording though, we will always be able to adjust it later to
reflect the reality of the situation as it evolves. I do like the
removal of the "sub-maintainer" term though, as I've always found it
demeaning.

>  
> -Patches for the media subsystem must be sent to the media mailing list
> -at linux-media@...r.kernel.org as plain text only e-mail. Emails with
> -HTML will be automatically rejected by the mail server. It could be wise
> -to also copy the sub-maintainer(s).
> +Media committers
> +----------------
> +
> +In the media subsystem, there are experienced developers that can commit

s/that/who/
s/commit/push/ to standardize the vocabulary (below you use "upload" to
mean the same thing)

> +patches directly on a development tree. These developers are called

s/on a/to the/

> +Media committers and are divided into the following categories:
> +
> +- Committers: responsible for one or more drivers within the media subsystem.
> +  They can upload changes to the tree that do not affect the core or ABI.

s/upload/push/

> +
> +- Core committers: responsible for part of the media core. They are typically
> +  responsible for one or more drivers within the media subsystem, but, besides
> +  that, they can also merge patches that change the code common to multiple
> +  drivers, including the kernel internal API/ABI.

I would write "API" only here. Neither the kernel internal API nor its
internal ABI are stable, and given that lack of stability, the ABI
concept doesn't really apply within the kernel.

> +
> +- Subsystem maintainers: responsible for the subsystem as a whole, with
> +  access to the entire subsystem.
> +
> +  Only subsystem maintainers can change the userspace API/ABI.

This can give the impression that only subsystem maintainers are allowed
to work on the API. I would write

  Only subsystem maintainers change push changes that affect the userspace
  API/ABI.

> +
> +Media committers shall explicitly agree with the Kernel development process

Do we have to capitalize "Kernel" everywhere ? There are way more
occurrences of "kernel" than "Kernel" in Documentation/ (even excluding
the lower case occurrences in e-mail addresses, file paths, ...).

> +as described at Documentation/process/index.rst and to the Kernel
> +development rules inside the Kernel documentation, including its code of
> +conduct.

That's expected of all kernel developers, but I don't object reiterating
it here.

> +
> +More details about media committers can be found here:

Maybe "about media commiters' roles and responsibilities" would be more
accurate, the document doesn't include information about the committers
themselves.

s/here:/at/

> +Documentation/driver-api/media/media-committer.rst.

Should this be a RST link ?

> +
> +Media development tree
> +----------------------
> +
> +The main development tree used by the media subsystem is hosted at LinuxTV.org,
> +where we also maintain news about the subsystem, wiki pages and a patchwork
> +instance where we track patches though their lifetime.
> +
> +The main tree used by media developers is at:
> +
> +https://git.linuxtv.org/media.git/

I think the multi-committers tree should be upgraded to main development
tree status, but that's a separate issue that I'm fine discussing
separately, and also delaying for a few kernel releases until we iron
out the rough edges of the process.

> +
> +.. _Media development workflow:
> +
> +Media development workflow
> +++++++++++++++++++++++++++
> +
> +All changes for the media subsystem must be sent first as e-mails to the
> +media mailing list, as plain text only e-mail to:
> +
> +  `https://subspace.kernel.org/vger.kernel.org.html <linux-media@...r.kernel.org>`_
> +
> +Emails with HTML will be automatically rejected by the mail server.
> +It could be wise to also copy the media committer(s). You should use
> +``scripts/get_maintainers.pl`` to identify whom else needs to be copied.
> +Please always copy driver's authors and maintainers.

Instead of duplicating a tiny part of the patch submission process, I
would link to the appropriate documentation.

[1] (see below)

> +
> +Such patches needed to be based against a public branch or tag as follows:

s/needed/need/

> +
> +1. new Kernel releases:

s/new/New/

What does that mean though ? It's not very clear.

> +
> +   Those need to be based at the ``next`` branch of that media.git tree
> +
> +2. During Kernel release development cycle, patches fixing bugs on a -rc
> +   kernel should preferably be against the latest -rc1 Kernel. If they
> +   require a previously-applied change, they need to be against the ``fixes``
> +   branch;
> +
> +3. Patches against an already released kernel should preferably be  against
> +   the latest released Kernel. If they require a previously-applied
> +   change, they need to be against ``fixes``.

If I were a new contributor I think I would have trouble understand this
to be honest. I won't push hard for a rework of this section, as I
expect it will change after the multi-committer tree becomes the main
way to get patches merged. We can then update the documentation.

> +
> +All patches with fixes shall have:
> +   - a ``Fixes:`` tag pointing to the first commit that introduced the bug;
> +   - a ``Cc: stable@...r.kernel.org``
> +
> +Patches that were fixing bugs reported by someone else shall have:
> +  - a ``Reported-by`` tag immediately followed by a ``Closes`` tag.

There's been a recent discussion about not including a Reported-by tag
without asking permission from the reporter, due to privacy reasons (in
particular for bugs reported to https://bugzilla.kernel.org/, as by
default the e-mail address of the reporter is not public). As the
Reported-by and Closes tags are not specific to the media tree, I would
drop this paragraph, otherwise we will have to duplicate a relatively
large amount of information related to privacy. You can link to the
relevant documentation instead, but I wouldn't even do that as it's
really not media-specific.

> +
> +Patches that change API/ABI shall require patches to update documentation

s/require patches to //

> +accordingly at the same patch series.

s/at the/in the/

> +
> +See Documentation/process/index.rst for more details about e-mail submission.

This could be moved up to [1].

> +
> +Once a patch is submitted, it may follow either one of the workflows
> +below:

"of the following workflows"

> +
> +a. Normal workflow: patches are handled by subsystem maintainers::
> +
> +     +------+   +---------+   +-------+   +-------------------+   +---------+
> +     |e-mail|-->|patchwork|-->|pull   |-->|maintainers merge  |-->|media.git|
> +     +------+   +---------+   |request|   |at media-committers|   +---------+
> +                              +-------+   +-------------------+

This makes it look like the pull request originates from patchwork.

s/at /in /

I would also add .git to media-committers to make it clear it's a git
tree.

(I still think the tree name is too long and not very appropriate, but
that's a different question)

> +
> +   For this workflow, pull requests can be generated by a committer,
> +   a previous committer, subsystem maintainers or by a couple of trusted
> +   long-time contributors. If you are not in such group, please don't submit
> +   pull requests, as they will likely be ignored.
> +
> +b. Committers' workflow: patches are handled by media committers::
> +
> +     +------+   +---------+   +-------------------+   +-----------+   +---------+
> +     |e-mail|-->|patchwork|-->|committers merge   |-->|maintainers|-->|media.git|
> +     +------+   +---------+   |at media-committers|   |approval   |   +---------+
> +                              +-------------------+   +-----------+
> +
> +When patches are merged at patchwork and when merged at media-committers,

We don't "merge" patches in patchwork. You could write "When patches are
picked by patchwork" for instance.

> +CI bots will check for errors and may provide e-mail feedback about
> +patch problems. When this happens, the e-mail author must fix them

s/e-mail author/patch author/ ? Or possibly better, "patch submitter" as
that person may not be the author.

> +and send another version of the patch.
> +
> +Patches will only be moved to the next stage in those two workflows if they
> +don't fail on CI or if there are false-positives at the CI reports.

s/at the/in the/

> +

This workflow doesn't apply to patch submitters who are not allowed to
send pull requests and who don't have direct commit access. I thought
these submitters are the main audience of this document. In that case, I
think moving the next section that explains the e-mail workflow before
the "Media development workflow" section (which should likely be renamed
to make it clear that it is about merging patches, not developing them)
would be best. The "Review Cadence" section could also be folded in
there, to give a full view of what a submitter can expect.

This would also have the advantage of introducing the linuvtv.org
patchwork instance, which you reference above. Documents are more
readable when they introduce concepts first before using them.

> +Failures during e-mail submission
> ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
>  
>  Media's workflow is heavily based on Patchwork, meaning that, once a patch
>  is submitted, the e-mail will first be accepted by the mailing list
> @@ -47,51 +156,36 @@ server, and, after a while, it should appear at:
>  
>     - https://patchwork.linuxtv.org/project/linux-media/list/
>  
> -If it doesn't automatically appear there after a few minutes, then
> +If it doesn't automatically appear there after some time [2]_, then
>  probably something went wrong on your submission. Please check if the
> -email is in plain text\ [2]_ only and if your emailer is not mangling
> +email is in plain text\ [3]_ only and if your emailer is not mangling
>  whitespaces before complaining or submitting them again.
>  
> -You can check if the mailing list server accepted your patch, by looking at:
> +To troubleshoot problems, you should first check if the mailing list
> +server has accepted your patch, by looking at:
>  
>     - https://lore.kernel.org/linux-media/
>  
> -.. [2] If your email contains HTML, the mailing list server will simply
> +If the patch is there and not at patchwork, it is likely that your e-mailer
> +mangled the patch. Patchwork internally has a logic that checks if the
> +received e-mail contain a valid patch. Any whitespace and new line
> +breakages mangling the patch won't be recognized by patchwork, thus such
> +patch will be rejected.
> +
> +.. [2] It usually takes a few minutes for the patch to arrive, but
> +       the e-mail server is busy, so it may take up to a few hours

s/is busy/may be busy/

> +       for a patch to be handled by the mail server and by the patchwork
> +       instance.

"for a patch to be recorded by patchwork."

> +
> +.. [3] If your email contains HTML, the mailing list server will simply
>         drop it, without any further notice.

These changes too could have been split to a separate cleanup patch, to
make the crux of this patch easier to review.

>  
> +Subsystem maintainers
> +---------------------
>  
> -Media maintainers
> -+++++++++++++++++
> -
> -At the media subsystem, we have a group of senior developers that
> -are responsible for doing the code reviews at the drivers (also known as
> -sub-maintainers), and another senior developer responsible for the
> -subsystem as a whole. For core changes, whenever possible, multiple
> -media maintainers do the review.
> -
> -The media maintainers that work on specific areas of the subsystem are:
> -
> -- Remote Controllers (infrared):
> -    Sean Young <sean@...s.org>
> -
> -- HDMI CEC:
> -    Hans Verkuil <hverkuil@...all.nl>
> -
> -- Media controller drivers:
> -    Laurent Pinchart <laurent.pinchart@...asonboard.com>
> -
> -- ISP, v4l2-async, v4l2-fwnode, v4l2-flash-led-class and Sensor drivers:
> -    Sakari Ailus <sakari.ailus@...ux.intel.com>
> -
> -- V4L2 drivers and core V4L2 frameworks:
> -    Hans Verkuil <hverkuil@...all.nl>

We're losing that information, isn't it valuable ?

> -
> -The subsystem maintainer is:
> -  Mauro Carvalho Chehab <mchehab@...nel.org>
> -
> -Media maintainers may delegate a patch to other media maintainers as needed.
> -On such case, checkpatch's ``delegate`` field indicates who's currently
> -responsible for reviewing a patch.
> +The subsystem maintainers are:
> +  Mauro Carvalho Chehab <mchehab@...nel.org> and
> +  Hans Verkuil <hverkuil@...all.nl>

If you don't intend on this being rendered as a list, it should be

The subsystem maintainers are Mauro Carvalho Chehab <mchehab@...nel.org> and
Hans Verkuil <hverkuil@...all.nl>.

Otherwise,

The subsystem maintainers are:

- Mauro Carvalho Chehab <mchehab@...nel.org>
- Hans Verkuil <hverkuil@...all.nl>


Shouldn't MAINTAINERS be updated at the same time ?

>  
>  Submit Checklist Addendum
>  -------------------------
> @@ -108,17 +202,14 @@ implementing the media APIs:
>  ====================	=======================================================
>  Type			Tool
>  ====================	=======================================================
> -V4L2 drivers\ [3]_	``v4l2-compliance``
> +V4L2 drivers\ [4]_	``v4l2-compliance``
>  V4L2 virtual drivers	``contrib/test/test-media``
>  CEC drivers		``cec-compliance``
>  ====================	=======================================================
>  
> -.. [3] The ``v4l2-compliance`` also covers the media controller usage inside
> +.. [4] The ``v4l2-compliance`` also covers the media controller usage inside
>         V4L2 drivers.
>  
> -Other compilance tools are under development to check other parts of the
> -subsystem.
> -
>  Those tests need to pass before the patches go upstream.
>  
>  Also, please notice that we build the Kernel with::
> @@ -134,6 +225,8 @@ Where the check script is::
>  Be sure to not introduce new warnings on your patches without a
>  very good reason.
>  
> +Please see `Media development workflow`_ for e-mail submission rules.
> +

These hunks too could have been split to a cleanup patch before the main
changes.

>  Style Cleanup Patches
>  +++++++++++++++++++++
>  
> diff --git a/Documentation/driver-api/media/media-committer.rst b/Documentation/driver-api/media/media-committer.rst
> new file mode 100644
> index 000000000000..27b85a37fb2b
> --- /dev/null
> +++ b/Documentation/driver-api/media/media-committer.rst
> @@ -0,0 +1,252 @@
> +Media committers
> +================
> +
> +What is a media committer?
> +--------------------------
> +
> +A media committer is a developer who can apply patches from other developers

Here too we could standardize to "push" instead of "apply".

> +and their own patches at the

s/at the/to the/

I would simply write "who can push commits to the ...".

> +`media-committers <https://gitlab.freedesktop.org/linux-media/media-committers>`_
> +tree.
> +
> +It is a media committer's duty to ensure that their entries at the MAINTAINERS

s/at the/in the/

> +file will be kept updated, and that submitted patches for files for which

s/will be kept update/are kept up-to-date/

> +they are listed as maintainers are timely reviewed at the mailing list,

s/at the/on the/

> +not waiting in patchwork as ``New`` for more than one Kernel merge cycle,
> +and, if accepted, applying them at the media committer's tree.

I think this goes a bit backward, and mixes things up a bit. On the
mixing side, the expectation of timely reviews comes from maintainer
status. Having commit rights is orthogonal to that.

The goal of direct commit access is to speed up maintenance, to get
patches reviewed and merged quicker. Are we saying here that if someone
has commit rights they will lose them if they take too long to review
code ? That would then slow down maintenance even more, which seems
counterproductive.

Also, while one can be recognized as a maintainer for multiple drivers
or parts of the kernel, there's a single committer status. You can't
revoke committer status of a particular driver only.

> +
> +This privilege is granted with some expectation of responsibility:

"Privilege" sounds a bit like lord and serf.

> +committers are people who care about the Linux Kernel as a whole and
> +about the Linux media subsystem and want to help its development. It
> +is also based on a trust relationship between the rest of the committers,
> +maintainers and the LinuxTV community.

Who is "the LinuxTV community" ?

> +
> +As such, a media committer is not just someone who is capable of creating
> +code, but someone who has demonstrated their ability to collaborate
> +with the team, get the most knowledgeable people to review code,
> +contribute high-quality code, and follow through to fix issues (in code
> +or tests).
> +
> +.. Note::
> +
> +   1. If a patch introduced a regression, then it is the media committer's

s/introduced/introduces/

> +      responsibility to correct that as soon as possible. Typically the
> +      patch is either reverted, or an additional patch is committed that
> +      fixes the regression;
> +   2. if patches are fixing bugs against already released Kernels, including
> +      the reverts above mentioned, the media committer shall add the needed
> +      tags.  Please see :ref:`Media development workflow` for more details.

s/  Please/ Please/

> +   3. all patches should be properly reviewed at
> +      linux-media@...r.kernel.org before being merged at the

s/at the/in the/

> +      media-committers tree or submitted on pull requests.

This is a fundamental rule that belongs to the development workflow in
my opinion.

> +
> +Becoming a media committer
> +--------------------------
> +
> +The most important aspect of volunteering to be a committer is that you will
> +be able to review and approve other people's changes, so we are looking for

Everybody is able to review patches (rather, everybody is allowed to
review patches, the ability is a different matter).

> +whether we think you will be good at doing that.

I've been told that "whether" should also come with a "or" clause. You
can write "whether or not we think ...".

> +
> +As such, potential committers must earn enough credibility and trust from the
> +LinuxTV community. To do that, developers shall be familiar with the open
> +source model and have been active at the Linux Kernel community for some time,

s/at the/in the/

> +and, in particular, with the media subsystem.

s/with the/in the/

> +
> +So, in addition to actually making the code changes, you are basically
> +demonstrating your:
> +
> +- commitment to the project;
> +- ability to collaborate with the team and communicate well;
> +- understand of how upstream and the LinuxTV community  works

s/  works/ work/

> +  (policies, processes for testing, code review, ...)
> +- reasonable knowledge about:
> +
> +  - the Kernel development process:
> +    Documentation/process/index.rst
> +
> +  - the Media development profile:
> +    Documentation/driver-api/media/maintainer-entry-profile.rst
> +
> +- understanding of the projects' code base and coding style;
> +- ability to provide feedback to the patch authors;
> +- ability to judge when a patch might be ready for review and to submit;
> +- ability to write good code (last but certainly not least).
> +
> +It is also desirable that developers that intend to become committers
> +make a best effort to attend the yearly Linux Media Summit, typically
> +co-located with another Linux conference.

I would say that "are encouraged to attend" instead of "make a best
effort to attend". Also, how will this scale when we'll have a few
dozen committers ? Typically the media summit is capped to 20 attendees
or less.

> +
> +If you are doing such tasks and have become a valued developer, an
> +existing committer can nominate you to the media subsystem maintainers.

https://drm.pages.freedesktop.org/maintainer-tools/committer/commit-access.html#access-request:

"Maintainers and committers should encourage contributors to request
commit rights, especially junior contributors tend to underestimate
their skills."

> +
> +The ultimate responsibility for accepting a nominated committer is up to
> +the subsystem's maintainers. The committers must earn a trust relationship
> +with all subsystem maintainers, as, by granting you commit rights, they will
> +be delegating part of their maintenance tasks.
> +
> +Due to that, to become a committer or a core committer, a consensus between
> +all subsystem maintainers is required, as they all need to trust a developer
> +well enough to be delegated the responsibility to maintain part of the code
> +and to properly review patches from third parties, in a timely manner and
> +keeping the status of the reviewed code at https://patchwork.linuxtv.org
> +updated.
> +
> +.. Note::
> +
> +   In order to preserve the developers that could have their commit rights

Do you mean "protect" instead of "preserve" ? Or maybe "preserve/protect
the privacy of" ?

s/that/who/
s/their // (in the granted case, they don't have commit rights yet)

> +   granted or denied as well as the subsystem maintainers who have the

"granted, denied or removed" ?

> +   task to accept or deny commit rights, all communication related to
> +   nominating a committer, preserving commit rights or leaving such function
> +   should happen in private as much as possible.
> +
> +Media committer's agreement
> +---------------------------
> +
> +Once a nominated committer is accepted by all subsystem maintainers,
> +they will ask if the developer is interested in the nomination and discuss
> +what area(s) of the media subsystem the committer will be responsible for.
> +
> +Once the developer accepts being a committer, the new committer shall
> +explicitly accept the Kernel development policies described under its
> +Documentation/, and, in particular to the rules on this document, by writing
> +an e-mail to media-committers@...uxtv.org, with a declaration of intent
> +following the model below::
> +
> +   I, John Doe, would like to change my status to: Committer
> +
> +   I intend to actively develop the XYZ driver, send fixes to drivers
> +   that I can test, reviewing patches and merging trivial fixes
> +   for the subsystem, ...

"Merging trivial fixes for the subsystem" bothers me. I don't think it
needs to be a requirement for committers. This is a maintainer's
responsibility. If people want to help with that that's great, but
making it a requirement isn't. Or did you mean this as an example ?

We shouldn't expect committers to handle a higher workload than what
they do as driver maintainers who submit patches by e-mail or send pull
requests. Giving commit rights will lower the effort to get patches in,
and I think it's fair to ask for keeping patchwork up-to-date in return,
but that's about it.

> +
> +Followed by a formal declaration of agreement with the Kernel development
> +rules, signed with a PGP key cross signed by other Kernel and media

s/PGP/GPG/ (same thing in practice, but let's advocate for free
software)

> +developers. Such declaration shall be::

I find the GPG signature requirement to be borderline ridiculous. The
first message you're giving to committers is that you distrust them so
much that you want them to sign an agreement with their blood
(figuratively speaking). I don't think it's a very good approach to
community building, nor does it bring any advantage to anyone.

> +
> +   I hereby declare that I agree with the Kernel development rules described at:
> +
> +   https://www.kernel.org/doc/html/latest/driver-api/media/media-committer.rst
> +
> +   and to the Linux Kernel development process rules.
> +
> +   I agree to the Code of Conduct as documented here:

s/here:/in/

> +   Documentation/process/code-of-conduct.rst

You use an http link for meda-commiter.rst and a file path for
code-of-conduct.rst. RST links for both would be more consistent, but if
the goal is to paste the text in an e-mail, you can also use http links
or file paths for both.

> +
> +   I am aware that I can, at any point of time, retire. In that case, I will
> +   send an e-mail to notify the subsystem maintainers for them to revoke my
> +   commit rights.
> +
> +   I am aware that the Kernel development rules change over time.
> +   By doing a new commit, I understand that I agree with the rules in effect

What does "doing a new commit" mean here ? Sending a patch to the list ?
Pushing it to the shared tree ? I assume the latter given the text
below, it could be clarified here.

> +   at the time of the commit.
> +
> +For more details about PGP sign, please read
> +Documentation/process/maintainer-pgp-guide.rst and
> +:ref:`kernel_org_trust_repository`.
> +
> +In case the kernel development process changes, by merging new commits at the

s/at the/in the/

> +`media-committers <https://gitlab.freedesktop.org/linux-media/media-committers>`_,

s/media-committers/media-committers tree/

> +the media committer implicitly declares that the agreement with the latest

s/that the/their/

> +version of the documented process and to the contents of this file.

s/to the contents // ("latest version" applies to both "the documented
process" and "this file")

This is problematic, as we can't expect people to check for changes in
this file every time they push something. Changes to this file should be
announced to all committers, with a reasonable review period.

> +
> +Core committers
> +---------------
> +
> +As described in Documentation/driver-api/media/maintainer-entry-profile.rst

RST link here too.

> +a committer may be granted with additional privileges to also be able to

s/privileges/rights/

(same below)

> +change a core file and/or media subsystem's Kernel API/ABI. The extent of

Drop "/ABI" as above.

> +the core committer's additional privileges will be detailed by the subsystem
> +maintainers when they nominate a core committer.
> +
> +Existing committers may become core committers and vice versa. Such
> +decisions will be taken in consensus between the subsystem maintainers.
> +
> +Media committers rules
> +----------------------
> +
> +Media committers shall ensure that merged patches will not break any existing
> +drivers. If it breaks, fixup or revert patches shall be merged as soon as

How do they ensure that ? I would prefer mentioning a best effort here,
as it's practically not possible to ensure this (until we have CI
covering all the drivers in the subsystem, which is not a reasonable
target).

> +possible, aiming to be merged at the same Kernel cycle the bug is reported.
> +
> +Media committers shall behave accordingly to the permissions granted by

s/permissions/rights/ (we never use "permission" anywhere else)

> +the subsystem maintainers, specially with regards of the scope of changes
> +they may apply directly at the media-committers tree. Such scope can
> +change overtime on a mutual greement between media committers and

s/overtime/over time/
s/greement/agreement/

> +maintainers.
> +
> +As described at :ref:`Media development workflow`, there are workflows.

s/at /in /

> +For the committers' workflow, the following rules apply:
> +
> +- Each merged patch shall pass CI tests;
> +
> +- Media committers shall request reviews from other committers were

We shouldn't limit this to "other committers". When making changes to a
driver that is not maintained by any committer (for instance when making
tree-wide changes), the person in the best position to review the
changes is the driver maintainer or author. I would extend this to "from
third parties", or "from other developers".

> +  applicable, i.e. because those committers have more knowledge about
> +  some areas that are changed by a patch;
> +
> +- No other media committer would be against the proposed changes.

https://drm.pages.freedesktop.org/maintainer-tools/committer/committer-drm-misc.html#merge-criteria:

"There must not be open issues or unresolved or conflicting feedback
from anyone. Clear them up first. Defer to maintainers as needed."

That's better than restricting the conflicts to committers. If there are
open issues, the patches should not be merged through the shared tree.

> +
> +Patches that do not fall under the committer's workflow criteria will follow
> +the normal workflow as described at :ref:`Media development workflow`.
> +
> +Only a subsystem maintainer can override such rules.
> +
> +All media committers shall ensure that patchwork will reflect the current
> +status, e.g. patches shall be delegated to the media committer who is
> +handling them and the patch status shall be updated according to these rules:
> +
> +- ``Under review``: Used if the patch requires a second opinion
> +  or when it is part of a pull request;
> +- ``Accepted``: Once a patch is merged at the multi-committer tree.

s/at the/in the/

> +- ``Superseded``: There is a newer version of the patch posted in the

s/in the/to the/

> +  mailing list.
> +- ``Duplicated``: There was another patch doing the same thing from someone
> +  else that was accepted.
> +- ``Not Applicable``: Use for patch series that are not merged at media.git
> +  tree (e.g. drm, dmabuf, upstream merge, etc.) but were cross-posted to the
> +  linux-media mailing list.
> +
> +If the committer decides not to merge it, then reply by email to patch
> +authors, explaining why it is not merged, and patchwork shall be updated
> +accordingly with either:
> +
> +- ``Changes Requested``: if a new revision was requested;
> +- ``Rejected``: if the proposed change won't be merged upstream.

There are tools to ease updating the status of a patch, could you
document or at least mention them ?

> +
> +If a media committer decides to retire, it is the committer's duty to
> +notify the subsystem maintainers about that decision.
> +
> +Maintaining media committer status
> +----------------------------------
> +
> +A community of committers working together to move the Linux Kernel
> +forward is essential to creating successful projects that are rewarding
> +to work on. If there are problems or disagreements within the community,
> +they can usually be solved through healthy discussion and debate.
> +
> +In the unhappy event that a media committer continues to disregard good
> +citizenship (or actively disrupts the project), we may need to revoke

That's very, very vague, surprisingly vague even from someone who raised
many concerns about the kernel code of conduct being vague.

> +that person's status. In such cases, if someone suggests the revocation with
> +a good reason, other developers may second the motion. The final decision
> +is taken by the subsystem maintainers. As the decision to become a media

What does "seconding the motion" bring, if the decision lies solely in
maintainers ?

> +committer comes from a consensus between subsystem maintainers, a single
> +subsystem maintainer not trusting the media committer anymore is enough to
> +revoke committer's privileges.
> +
> +If a committer is inactive for more than a couple of Kernel cycles,
> +maintainers will try to reach you via e-mail. If not possible, they may
> +revoke your committer privileges and update MAINTAINERS file entries
> +accordingly. If you wish to resume contributing later on, then contact
> +the subsystem maintainers to ask if your rights can be restored.

https://drm.pages.freedesktop.org/maintainer-tools/committer/commit-access.html#access-request:

"Committers are encouraged to request their commit rights get removed
when they no longer contribute to the project. Commit rights may be
automatically revoked after a year of inactivity (no commits or
reviews). Commit rights will be reinstated when they come back to the
project."

> +
> +A previous committer that had his commit rights revoked can keep contributing

s/his/their/

> +to the subsystem via the normal e-mail workflow as documented at the
> +:ref:`Media development workflow`.
> +
> +References
> +----------
> +
> +Much of this was inspired by/copied from the committer policies of:
> +
> +- `Chromium <https://chromium.googlesource.com/chromium/src/+/main/docs/contributing.md>`_;
> +- `WebKit <http://www.google.com/url?q=http%3A%2F%2Fwebkit.org%2Fcoding%2Fcommit-review-policy.html&sa=D&sntz=1&usg=AFrqEze4W4Lvbhue4Bywqgbv-N5J66kQgA>`_;

Google tracks us enough without using google URLs.

> +- `Mozilla <http://www.google.com/url?q=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.mozilla.org%2Fhacking%2Fcommitter%2F&sa=D&sntz=1&usg=AFrqEzecK7iiXqV30jKibNmmMtzHwtYRTg>`_.

https://drm.pages.freedesktop.org/maintainer-tools/committer/commit-access.html
would also have been a good source of inspiration. That's the only large
multi-committer workflow today in the kernel, and it has proven its
value. The explicit acceptance criteria in particular are very good.
Quoting the document, it says

"Commit rights will be granted to anyone who requests them and fulfills
the below criteria:"

That's how we build an inclusive community, it feels way more welcoming
than saying that maintainers will discuss in private and grant
privileges to underlings if it pleases them (even if the effect is the
same in practice, it's still a maintainer decision).

> +
> diff --git a/Documentation/process/maintainer-pgp-guide.rst b/Documentation/process/maintainer-pgp-guide.rst
> index f5277993b195..795ef8d89271 100644
> --- a/Documentation/process/maintainer-pgp-guide.rst
> +++ b/Documentation/process/maintainer-pgp-guide.rst
> @@ -903,6 +903,8 @@ the new default in GnuPG v2). To set it, add (or modify) the
>  
>      trust-model tofu+pgp
>  
> +.. _kernel_org_trust_repository:
> +
>  Using the kernel.org web of trust repository
>  --------------------------------------------
>  

-- 
Regards,

Laurent Pinchart

Powered by blists - more mailing lists