[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <934p49q9-r248-74s5-o936-431oo97o20on@xreary.bet>
Date: Sat, 24 Jan 2026 21:45:14 +0100 (CET)
From: Jiri Kosina <jikos@...nel.org>
To: Mauro Carvalho Chehab <mchehab+huawei@...nel.org>
cc: Dan Williams <dan.j.williams@...el.com>, corbet@....net,
ksummit@...ts.linux.dev, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
tech-board-discuss@...ts.linux.dev,
Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>,
Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>,
Miguel Ojeda <ojeda@...nel.org>, Kees Cook <kees@...nel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] Documentation: Project continuity
On Sat, 24 Jan 2026, Mauro Carvalho Chehab wrote:
> > Document project continuity procedures. This is a plan for a plan for
> > navigating events that affect the forward progress of the canonical Linux
> > repository, torvalds/linux.git. It is a follow-up from Maintainer Summit
> > [1].
>
> The idea behind this document is interesting, but IMHO it is too
> optimistic for a contingency plan ;-)
>
> Conceptually, contingency plans are written to overcome all foreseeable
> bad consequences that might happen. So, it should include backups
> for each possible bad scenario.
I agree with Greg here, that covering each possible scenario is not really
realistic an feasible anyway.
I believe that rather than the actual deep details of the plan, it's much
more important to have it written that "there is a plan".
I for example know for sure that there are people out there who believe
that there is some secret testament hidden somewhere within the depths of
Linux Foundation on this topic, and this explicitly clarifies it. Which
should be the main prupose, in my view.
--
Jiri Kosina
SUSE Labs
Powered by blists - more mailing lists