linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v3 3/3] docs: media: profile: make it clearer about maintainership duties

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: <Z03I1R0aRylSz742@valkosipuli.retiisi.eu>
Date: Mon, 2 Dec 2024 14:48:53 +0000
From: Sakari Ailus <sakari.ailus@....fi>
To: Mauro Carvalho Chehab <mchehab+huawei@...nel.org>
Cc: linux-media@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v3 3/3] docs: media: profile: make it clearer about
 maintainership duties

Hi Mauro,

On Mon, Dec 02, 2024 at 10:26:21AM +0100, Mauro Carvalho Chehab wrote:
> During the review of the media committes profile, it was noticed

s/committe\K/r/

> 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 705209eacf58..50568c744129 100644
> --- a/Documentation/driver-api/media/maintainer-entry-profile.rst
> +++ b/Documentation/driver-api/media/maintainer-entry-profile.rst
> @@ -153,6 +153,11 @@ 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

I'd put this as:

Such patches will be reviewed timely by the maintainers and reviewers as
listed in the MAINTAINERS file.

> +workflows, e. g. they will either send a pull request or merge patches
> +directly at the media-committers tree.

Can we expect people listed as maintainers to either send PRs or be media
committers? I think this might be eventually the result but I think we're
quite far from this currently and I expect things to remain that way in the
near future.


> +
>  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, or
> diff --git a/Documentation/driver-api/media/media-committer.rst b/Documentation/driver-api/media/media-committer.rst
> index 3c2f8f413307..ec81f01db126 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

s/code/patches/

> +at https://patchwork.linuxtv.org updated.
>  
>  .. Note::
>  

-- 
Kind regards,

Sakari Ailus