| 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
| ||
|
Message-ID: <a864d9f3e04f38ba8ac17985d79b20f86046f190.1732964559.git.mchehab+huawei@kernel.org> Date: Sat, 30 Nov 2024 12:23:54 +0100 From: Mauro Carvalho Chehab <mchehab+huawei@...nel.org> To: Cc: Mauro Carvalho Chehab <mchehab+huawei@...nel.org>, Mauro Carvalho Chehab <mchehab+huawei@...nel.org>, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, linux-media@...r.kernel.org Subject: [PATCH] docs: media: profile: make it clearer about maintainership duties This pach is against: https://lore.kernel.org/linux-media/cover.1732872169.git.mchehab+huawei@kernel.org/ During the review of the media committes profile, it was noticed that the responsibility for timely review patches was not clear: such review is expected that all developers listed at MAINTAINERS with the "M:" tag (e.g. "maintainers" on its broad sense). This is orthogonal of being a media committer or not. Such duty is implied at: Documentation/admin-guide/reporting-issues.rst and at the MAINTAINERS header, when it says that even when the status is "odd fixes", the patches will flow in. So, let make it explicit at the maintainer-entry-profile that maintainers need to do timely reviews. Also, while right now our focus is on granting committer rights to maintainers, the media-committer model may evolve in the future to accept other committers that don't have such duties. So, make it clear at the media-committer.rst that the duties related to reviewing patches from others are for the drivers they are maintainers as well. Signed-off-by: Mauro Carvalho Chehab <mchehab+huawei@...nel.org> --- Documentation/driver-api/media/maintainer-entry-profile.rst | 5 +++++ Documentation/driver-api/media/media-committer.rst | 6 +++--- 2 files changed, 8 insertions(+), 3 deletions(-) diff --git a/Documentation/driver-api/media/maintainer-entry-profile.rst b/Documentation/driver-api/media/maintainer-entry-profile.rst index 650803c30c41..6daf71bc72c1 100644 --- a/Documentation/driver-api/media/maintainer-entry-profile.rst +++ b/Documentation/driver-api/media/maintainer-entry-profile.rst @@ -147,6 +147,11 @@ b. Committers' workflow: patches are handled by media committers:: On both workflows, all patches shall be properly reviewed at linux-media@...r.kernel.org before being merged at media-committers.git. +Such patches will be timely-reviewed by developers listed as maintainers at +the MAINTAINERS file. Such maintainers will follow one of the above +workflows, e. g. they will either send a pull request or merge patches +directly at the media-committers tree. + When patches are picked by patchwork and when merged at media-committers, CI bots will check for errors and may provide e-mail feedback about patch problems. When this happens, the patch submitter must fix them diff --git a/Documentation/driver-api/media/media-committer.rst b/Documentation/driver-api/media/media-committer.rst index 1756a7af6353..a873ef84fbca 100644 --- a/Documentation/driver-api/media/media-committer.rst +++ b/Documentation/driver-api/media/media-committer.rst @@ -87,9 +87,9 @@ 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. +and to properly review patches from third parties for the drivers they are +maintainers in a timely manner and keeping the status of the reviewed code +at https://patchwork.linuxtv.org updated. .. Note:: -- 2.47.1
Powered by blists - more mailing lists