lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2023]   [Jul]   [21]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
From
SubjectRe: [PATCH docs v3] docs: maintainer: document expectations of small time maintainers
Date
Jakub Kicinski <kuba@kernel.org> writes:

> We appear to have a gap in our process docs. We go into detail
> on how to contribute code to the kernel, and how to be a subsystem
> maintainer. I can't find any docs directed towards the thousands
> of small scale maintainers, like folks maintaining a single driver
> or a single network protocol.
>
> Document our expectations and best practices. I'm hoping this doc
> will be particularly useful to set expectations with HW vendors.
>
> Reviewed-by: Andrew Lunn <andrew@lunn.ch>
> Reviewed-by: Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@linuxfoundation.org>
> Reviewed-by: Krzysztof Kozlowski <krzk@kernel.org>
> Reviewed-by: Mark Brown <broonie@kernel.org>
> Reviewed-by: Leon Romanovsky <leonro@nvidia.com>
> Signed-off-by: Jakub Kicinski <kuba@kernel.org>
> ---
> v3:
> - clarify that mailings list in addition to humans is fine (Mark)
> - reword the "review from one maintainer is enough" (Benjamin)
> - grammar fixes (Benjamin, Shannon)
> - typos (Andrew, Shannon)
> v2: https://lore.kernel.org/all/20230718155814.1674087-1-kuba@kernel.org/
> - use Thorsten's wording for bug fixing requirements
> - put more words into the review/response timeline expectations
> v1: https://lore.kernel.org/all/20230713223432.1501133-1-kuba@kernel.org/

It sure seems to me that the time has come to apply this before I need a
bigger disk to hold all the Reviewed-by tags ... :) So I have done so,
thanks.

jon

\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2023-07-21 21:54    [W:0.092 / U:21.440 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site