Re: [PATCH docs v3] docs: maintainer: document expectations of small time maintainers
From: Conor Dooley <conor@kernel.org>
Date: 2023-07-20 15:16:11
Also in:
linux-doc, lkml, workflows
Hey, On Wed, Jul 19, 2023 at 11:32:25AM -0700, Jakub Kicinski wrote:
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.
Thanks for writing this up, it's great to have this stuff written down. I had one minor comment from reading through things...
+Responsibilities +================ + +The amount of maintenance work is usually proportional to the size +and popularity of the code base. Small features and drivers should +require relatively small amount of care and feeding. Nonetheless +when the work does arrive (in form of patches which need review, +user bug reports etc.) it has to be acted upon promptly. +Even when a particular driver only sees one patch a month, or a quarter, +a subsystem could well have a hundred such drivers. Subsystem +maintainers cannot afford to wait a long time to hear from reviewers. + +The exact expectations on the response time will vary by subsystem. +The patch review SLA the subsystem had set for itself can sometimes +be found in the subsystem documentation. Failing that as a rule of thumb +reviewers should try to respond quicker than what is the usual patch +review delay of the subsystem maintainer. The resulting expectations +may range from two working days for fast-paced subsystems (e.g. networking) +to as long as a few weeks in slower moving parts of the kernel. + +Mailing list participation +--------------------------
+Reviews +-------
+Refactoring and core changes +----------------------------
+Bug reports +-----------
..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.
Attachments
- signature.asc [application/pgp-signature] 228 bytes