netdev - Re: [PATCH docs v2] docs: maintainer: document expectations of small time maintainers

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]

Date: Tue, 18 Jul 2023 18:55:28 +0200
From: Andrew Lunn <andrew@...n.ch>
To: Jakub Kicinski <kuba@...nel.org>
Cc: corbet@....net, workflows@...r.kernel.org, linux-doc@...r.kernel.org,
	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, netdev@...r.kernel.org,
	gregkh@...uxfoundation.org, linux@...mhuis.info, broonie@...nel.org,
	krzk@...nel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH docs v2] docs: maintainer: document expectations of small
 time maintainers

> +Selecting the maintainer
> +========================
> +
> +The previous section described the expectations of the maintainer,
> +this section provides guidance on selecting one and decribes common

s/decribes/describes

> +Maintainers must be human, however, it is not acceptable to add a mailing
> +list or a group email as a maintainer.

I would probably replace however, with therefore. 

> +Removing an inactive maintainer should not be seen as a punitive action.
> +Having an inactive maintainer has a real cost as all developeres have

Too many e's in developeres

Otherwise:

Reviewed-by: Andrew Lunn <andrew@...n.ch>

    Andrew