[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index] Re: [Xen-devel] [PATCH v4] MAINTAINERS: Add explicit check-in policy section
On 13.01.2020 16:04, George Dunlap wrote: > The "nesting" section in the MAINTAINERS file was not initially > intended to describe the check-in policy for patches, but only how > nesting worked; but since there was no check-in policy, it has been > acting as a de-facto policy. > > One problem with this is that the policy is not complete: It doesn't > cover open objections, time to check-in, or so on. The other problem > with the policy is that, as written, it doesn't account for > maintainers submitting patches to files which they themselves > maintain. This is fine for situations where there are are multiple > maintainers, but not for situations where there is only one > maintainer. > > Add an explicit "Check-in policy" section to the MAINTAINERS document > to serve as the canonical reference for the check-in policy. Move > paragraphs not explicitly related to nesting into it. > > While here, "promote" the "The meaning of nesting" section title. > > DISCUSSION > > This seems to be a change from people's understanding of the current > policy. Most people's understanding of the current policy seems to be: > > 1. In order to get a change to a given file committed, it must have > an Ack or Review from at least one *maintainer* of that file other > than the submitter. > > 2. In the case where a file has only one maintainer, it must have an > Ack or Review from a "nested" maintainer. > > I.e., if I submitted something to x86/mm, it would require an Ack from > Jan or Andy, or (in exceptional circumstances) The Rest; but an Ack from > (say) Roger or Juergen wouldn't suffice. > > Let's call this the "maintainer-ack" approach (because it must have an > ack or r-b from a maintainer to be checked in), and the proposal in > this patch the "maintainer-approval" (since SoB from a maintainer > indicates approval). > > The core issue I have with "maintainer-ack" is that it makes the > maintainer less privileged with regard to writing code than > non-maintainers. If component X has maintainers A and B, then a > non-maintainer can have code checked in if reviewed either by A or B. > If A or B wants code checked in, they have to wait for exactly one > person to review it. > > In fact, if B is quite busy, the easiest way for A really to get their > code checked in might be to hand it to a non-maintainer N, and ask N > to submit it as their own. Then A can Ack the patches and check them > in. > > The current system, therefore, either sets up a perverse incentive (if > you think the behavior described above is unacceptable) or unnecessary > bureaucracy (if you think it's acceptable). Either way I think we > should set up our system to avoid it. > > Other variations on "maintainer-ack" have been proposed: > > - Allow maintainer's patches to go in with an R-b from "designated > reviewers" > > - Allow maintainer's patches to go in with an Ack from more general > maintainer > > Both fundamentally make it harder for maintainers to get their code in > and/or reviewed effectively than non-maintainers, setting up the > perverse incentive / unnecessary bureaucracy. > > Signed-off-by: George Dunlap <george.dunlap@xxxxxxxxxx> Acked-by: Jan Beulich <jbeulich@xxxxxxxx> Albeit I guess this is rather something which needs voting on. Jan _______________________________________________ Xen-devel mailing list Xen-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://lists.xenproject.org/mailman/listinfo/xen-devel
|
![]() |
Lists.xenproject.org is hosted with RackSpace, monitoring our |