netdev - Re: [PATCH docs v3] 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: Thu, 20 Jul 2023 14:37:46 -0700
From: Jakub Kicinski <kuba@...nel.org>
To: Conor Dooley <conor@...nel.org>
Cc: corbet@....net, Andrew Lunn <andrew@...n.ch>, Greg Kroah-Hartman
 <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>, Krzysztof Kozlowski <krzk@...nel.org>, Mark
 Brown <broonie@...nel.org>, Leon Romanovsky <leonro@...dia.com>,
 workflows@...r.kernel.org, linux-doc@...r.kernel.org,
 linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, netdev@...r.kernel.org, linux@...mhuis.info,
 kvalo@...nel.org, benjamin.poirier@...il.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH docs v3] docs: maintainer: document expectations of
 small time maintainers

On Thu, 20 Jul 2023 16:15:26 +0100 Conor Dooley wrote:
> ..I noticed that none of these sections address actually testing the
> code they're responsible for on a (semi-)regular basis. Sure, that comes
> as part of reviewing the patches for their code, but changes to other
> subsystems that a driver/feature maintainer probably would not have been
> CCed on may cause problems for the code they maintain.
> If we are adding a doc about best-practice for maintainers, I think we
> should be encouraging people to test regularly.

I think our testing story is too shaky to make that a requirement.
Differently put - I was never able to get good upstream testing running
when I worked for a vendor myself so I wouldn't know how to draw 
the lines.