linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v4 5/5] 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: <a9eed620-5cf7-4fdc-a00a-87b488c2a63c@xs4all.nl>
Date: Wed, 4 Dec 2024 14:29:47 +0100
From: Hans Verkuil <hverkuil@...all.nl>
To: Mauro Carvalho Chehab <mchehab+huawei@...nel.org>
Cc: linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, linux-media@...r.kernel.org,
 Ricardo Ribalda <ribalda@...omium.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v4 5/5] docs: media: profile: make it clearer about
 maintainership duties

On 12/4/24 13:51, Mauro Carvalho Chehab wrote:
> Em Wed, 4 Dec 2024 13:11:45 +0100
> Hans Verkuil <hverkuil@...all.nl> escreveu:
> 
>> On 12/3/24 10:35, Mauro Carvalho Chehab wrote:
>>> During the review of the media committer's 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 fa28059f7b3f..87b71f89b1df 100644
>>> --- a/Documentation/driver-api/media/maintainer-entry-profile.rst
>>> +++ b/Documentation/driver-api/media/maintainer-entry-profile.rst
>>> @@ -173,6 +173,11 @@ b. Committers' workflow: patches are handled by media committers::
>>>  On both workflows, all patches shall be properly reviewed at
>>>  linux-media@...r.kernel.org (LMML) before being merged at media-committers.git.
>>>  
>>> +Such patches will be reviewed timely by the maintainers and reviewers as
>>> +listed in the MAINTAINERS file. The subsystem 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, or
>>> diff --git a/Documentation/driver-api/media/media-committer.rst b/Documentation/driver-api/media/media-committer.rst
>>> index 3d0987a8a93b..0bc038a0fdcc 100644
>>> --- a/Documentation/driver-api/media/media-committer.rst
>>> +++ b/Documentation/driver-api/media/media-committer.rst
>>> @@ -90,9 +90,9 @@ be a 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 that they
>>> +maintain in a timely manner and keeping the status of the patches at
>>> +https://patchwork.linuxtv.org updated.
>>>  
>>>  .. Note::
>>>    
>>
>> Looks OK to me, but I thought this was supposed to be folded into the 3/5 and 4/5 patches?

For the record:

Reviewed-by: Hans Verkuil <hverkuil@...all.nl>

You can also add that for patches 1 and 2 (I found them in lore.kernel.org).

Regards,

	Hans

> 
> I'll fold it once you and Ricardo gives the same review/Sob as marked on 3/5 and 4/5.
> 
> 
> Thanks,
> Mauro