lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2017]   [Nov]   [17]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
Date
From
SubjectRe: [PATCH] rdma: Add Jason as a co-maintainer
On Fri, Nov 17, 2017 at 05:54:34PM +0000, Bart Van Assche wrote:
> Thanks Doug for having added a co-maintainer. Jason, thank you for willing
> to be a co-maintainer.

Thank you Bart!

> Jason, if you are going to send pull requests to Linus you should be aware
> of the following:

I think we will work up to that, obviously I will be working with Doug
and his expertise and experience will guide what happens.

A new git tree has been setup for RDMA:

https://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/rdma/rdma.git/

This will replace Doug's personal k.o tree effective immediately as
the cannonical source for the RDMA work in progress.

Both Doug and I have write privileges to this tree.

> * Linus trusts pull requests from a kernel.org repository more than pull
> requests from a repository outside kernel.org (e.g. github). Any requests
> to pull from e.g. github must be PGP-signed.

Done

> * If you send an e-mail to Wu Fengguang then he will add a branch from your
> repository to his zero-day testing. This is a great way to catch build
> failures before linux-next catches these.

Thanks

> * Any patches that will be sent to Linus must have been in the for-next
> repository for at least a few days. Requests to add a branch to linux-next
> should be sent to Stephen Rothwell with linux-next in Cc.

Doug will send Stephen Rothwell a note to move his for-next pull for
RDMA from Doug's personal directory to:

git://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/rdma/rdma.git

Branch k.o/for-next

> * Maintainers are expected to keep an eye on merge conflicts and other reports
> sent out to the linux-next mailing list
> (http://vger.kernel.org/vger-lists.html#linux-next).

Good advice..

> * Rebasing a tree that will be sent to Linus is completely inacceptable. A
> quote from Linus: "And in general, you simply should never rebase commits
> that have already been publicized." Source: Linus Torvalds, Re: linux-next:
> Signed-off-by missing for commit in the drivers-x86 tree, linux-next mailing
> list, 2 August 2017 (https://www.spinics.net/lists/kernel/msg2571584.html).

Yes, of course

> * Backmerging (merging a later rc into a maintainer tree) to pull in rc fixes
> from other maintainers is considered inacceptable too. If patches from other
> maintainers are really needed I think it is acceptable to merge a maintainer
> tree into Linus' tree and to apply late rc patches on top of that merged
> tree.

Yes, this gets tricky if two trees have to coordinate..

Jason

\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2017-11-17 19:15    [W:0.098 / U:1.960 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site