lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2019]   [Aug]   [21]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
SubjectRe: Status of Subsystems
From
Date
On 20.08.19 19:15, Theodore Y. Ts'o wrote:

Hi,

> There are some files which have no official
> owner, and there are also some files which may be modified by more
> than one subsystem.

hmm, wouldn't it be better to alway have explicit maintainers ?

I recall some discussion few weeks ago on some of my patches, where it
turned out that amm acts as fallback for a lot of code that doesn't have
a maintainer.

@Sebastian: maybe you could also create reports for quickly identifying
those cases.

> We certainly don't talk about "inheritance" when we talk about
> maintainers and sub-maintainers.

What's the exact definition of the term "sub-maintainer" ?

Somebody who's maintaining some defined part of something bigger
(eg. a driver within some subsystem, some platform within some
arch, etc) or kinda deputee maintainer ?

> Furthermore, the relationships,
> processes, and workflows between a particular maintainer and their
> submaintainers can be unique to a particular maintainer.

Can we somehow find some (semi-formal) description for those
relationships and workflows, so it's easier to learn about them
when some is new to some particular area ?

(I'd volounteer maintaining such documentation, if the individual
maintainers feed me the necessary information ;-)).


--mtx

--
Enrico Weigelt, metux IT consult
Free software and Linux embedded engineering
info@metux.net -- +49-151-27565287

\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2019-08-21 14:11    [W:0.134 / U:0.808 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site