| Message ID | f74d32eba4c1799fe7fd407a3889a3de91fb09f2.1733218348.git.mchehab+huawei@kernel.org (mailing list archive) |
|---|---|
| State | New |
| Headers | show |
| Series | Document the new media-committer's model | expand |
On 12/3/24 10:35, Mauro Carvalho Chehab wrote: > During the review of the media committer's profile, it was noticed > that the responsibility for timely review patches was not clear: > such review is expected that all developers listed at MAINTAINERS > with the "M:" tag (e.g. "maintainers" on its broad sense). > > This is orthogonal of being a media committer or not. Such duty > is implied at: > > Documentation/admin-guide/reporting-issues.rst > > and at the MAINTAINERS header, when it says that even when the > status is "odd fixes", the patches will flow in. > > So, let make it explicit at the maintainer-entry-profile that > maintainers need to do timely reviews. > > Also, while right now our focus is on granting committer rights to > maintainers, the media-committer model may evolve in the future to > accept other committers that don't have such duties. > > So, make it clear at the media-committer.rst that the duties > related to reviewing patches from others are for the drivers > they are maintainers as well. > > Signed-off-by: Mauro Carvalho Chehab <mchehab+huawei@kernel.org> > --- > Documentation/driver-api/media/maintainer-entry-profile.rst | 5 +++++ > Documentation/driver-api/media/media-committer.rst | 6 +++--- > 2 files changed, 8 insertions(+), 3 deletions(-) > > diff --git a/Documentation/driver-api/media/maintainer-entry-profile.rst b/Documentation/driver-api/media/maintainer-entry-profile.rst > index fa28059f7b3f..87b71f89b1df 100644 > --- a/Documentation/driver-api/media/maintainer-entry-profile.rst > +++ b/Documentation/driver-api/media/maintainer-entry-profile.rst > @@ -173,6 +173,11 @@ b. Committers' workflow: patches are handled by media committers:: > On both workflows, all patches shall be properly reviewed at > linux-media@vger.kernel.org (LMML) before being merged at media-committers.git. > > +Such patches will be reviewed timely by the maintainers and reviewers as > +listed in the MAINTAINERS file. The subsystem maintainers will follow one of > +the above workflows, e. g. they will either send a pull request or merge > +patches directly at the media-committers tree. > + > When patches are picked by patchwork and when merged at media-committers, > CI bots will check for errors and may provide e-mail feedback about > patch problems. When this happens, the patch submitter must fix them, or > diff --git a/Documentation/driver-api/media/media-committer.rst b/Documentation/driver-api/media/media-committer.rst > index 3d0987a8a93b..0bc038a0fdcc 100644 > --- a/Documentation/driver-api/media/media-committer.rst > +++ b/Documentation/driver-api/media/media-committer.rst > @@ -90,9 +90,9 @@ be a part of their maintenance tasks. > Due to that, to become a committer or a core committer, a consensus between > all subsystem maintainers is required, as they all need to trust a developer > well enough to be delegated the responsibility to maintain part of the code > -and to properly review patches from third parties, in a timely manner and > -keeping the status of the reviewed code at https://patchwork.linuxtv.org > -updated. > +and to properly review patches from third parties for the drivers that they > +maintain in a timely manner and keeping the status of the patches at > +https://patchwork.linuxtv.org updated. > > .. Note:: > Looks OK to me, but I thought this was supposed to be folded into the 3/5 and 4/5 patches? Regards, Hans
Em Wed, 4 Dec 2024 13:11:45 +0100 Hans Verkuil <hverkuil@xs4all.nl> escreveu: > On 12/3/24 10:35, Mauro Carvalho Chehab wrote: > > During the review of the media committer's profile, it was noticed > > that the responsibility for timely review patches was not clear: > > such review is expected that all developers listed at MAINTAINERS > > with the "M:" tag (e.g. "maintainers" on its broad sense). > > > > This is orthogonal of being a media committer or not. Such duty > > is implied at: > > > > Documentation/admin-guide/reporting-issues.rst > > > > and at the MAINTAINERS header, when it says that even when the > > status is "odd fixes", the patches will flow in. > > > > So, let make it explicit at the maintainer-entry-profile that > > maintainers need to do timely reviews. > > > > Also, while right now our focus is on granting committer rights to > > maintainers, the media-committer model may evolve in the future to > > accept other committers that don't have such duties. > > > > So, make it clear at the media-committer.rst that the duties > > related to reviewing patches from others are for the drivers > > they are maintainers as well. > > > > Signed-off-by: Mauro Carvalho Chehab <mchehab+huawei@kernel.org> > > --- > > Documentation/driver-api/media/maintainer-entry-profile.rst | 5 +++++ > > Documentation/driver-api/media/media-committer.rst | 6 +++--- > > 2 files changed, 8 insertions(+), 3 deletions(-) > > > > diff --git a/Documentation/driver-api/media/maintainer-entry-profile.rst b/Documentation/driver-api/media/maintainer-entry-profile.rst > > index fa28059f7b3f..87b71f89b1df 100644 > > --- a/Documentation/driver-api/media/maintainer-entry-profile.rst > > +++ b/Documentation/driver-api/media/maintainer-entry-profile.rst > > @@ -173,6 +173,11 @@ b. Committers' workflow: patches are handled by media committers:: > > On both workflows, all patches shall be properly reviewed at > > linux-media@vger.kernel.org (LMML) before being merged at media-committers.git. > > > > +Such patches will be reviewed timely by the maintainers and reviewers as > > +listed in the MAINTAINERS file. The subsystem maintainers will follow one of > > +the above workflows, e. g. they will either send a pull request or merge > > +patches directly at the media-committers tree. > > + > > When patches are picked by patchwork and when merged at media-committers, > > CI bots will check for errors and may provide e-mail feedback about > > patch problems. When this happens, the patch submitter must fix them, or > > diff --git a/Documentation/driver-api/media/media-committer.rst b/Documentation/driver-api/media/media-committer.rst > > index 3d0987a8a93b..0bc038a0fdcc 100644 > > --- a/Documentation/driver-api/media/media-committer.rst > > +++ b/Documentation/driver-api/media/media-committer.rst > > @@ -90,9 +90,9 @@ be a part of their maintenance tasks. > > Due to that, to become a committer or a core committer, a consensus between > > all subsystem maintainers is required, as they all need to trust a developer > > well enough to be delegated the responsibility to maintain part of the code > > -and to properly review patches from third parties, in a timely manner and > > -keeping the status of the reviewed code at https://patchwork.linuxtv.org > > -updated. > > +and to properly review patches from third parties for the drivers that they > > +maintain in a timely manner and keeping the status of the patches at > > +https://patchwork.linuxtv.org updated. > > > > .. Note:: > > > > Looks OK to me, but I thought this was supposed to be folded into the 3/5 and 4/5 patches? I'll fold it once you and Ricardo gives the same review/Sob as marked on 3/5 and 4/5. Thanks, Mauro
On Wed, Dec 4, 2024 at 2:16 PM Mauro Carvalho Chehab <mchehab+huawei@kernel.org> wrote: > > Em Wed, 4 Dec 2024 13:11:45 +0100 > Hans Verkuil <hverkuil@xs4all.nl> escreveu: > > > On 12/3/24 10:35, Mauro Carvalho Chehab wrote: > > > During the review of the media committer's profile, it was noticed > > > that the responsibility for timely review patches was not clear: > > > such review is expected that all developers listed at MAINTAINERS > > > with the "M:" tag (e.g. "maintainers" on its broad sense). > > > > > > This is orthogonal of being a media committer or not. Such duty > > > is implied at: > > > > > > Documentation/admin-guide/reporting-issues.rst > > > > > > and at the MAINTAINERS header, when it says that even when the > > > status is "odd fixes", the patches will flow in. > > > > > > So, let make it explicit at the maintainer-entry-profile that > > > maintainers need to do timely reviews. > > > > > > Also, while right now our focus is on granting committer rights to > > > maintainers, the media-committer model may evolve in the future to > > > accept other committers that don't have such duties. > > > > > > So, make it clear at the media-committer.rst that the duties > > > related to reviewing patches from others are for the drivers > > > they are maintainers as well. > > > > > > Signed-off-by: Mauro Carvalho Chehab <mchehab+huawei@kernel.org> Reviewed-by: Ricardo Ribalda <ribalda@chromium.org> > > > --- > > > Documentation/driver-api/media/maintainer-entry-profile.rst | 5 +++++ > > > Documentation/driver-api/media/media-committer.rst | 6 +++--- > > > 2 files changed, 8 insertions(+), 3 deletions(-) > > > > > > diff --git a/Documentation/driver-api/media/maintainer-entry-profile.rst b/Documentation/driver-api/media/maintainer-entry-profile.rst > > > index fa28059f7b3f..87b71f89b1df 100644 > > > --- a/Documentation/driver-api/media/maintainer-entry-profile.rst > > > +++ b/Documentation/driver-api/media/maintainer-entry-profile.rst > > > @@ -173,6 +173,11 @@ b. Committers' workflow: patches are handled by media committers:: > > > On both workflows, all patches shall be properly reviewed at > > > linux-media@vger.kernel.org (LMML) before being merged at media-committers.git. > > > > > > +Such patches will be reviewed timely by the maintainers and reviewers as > > > +listed in the MAINTAINERS file. The subsystem maintainers will follow one of > > > +the above workflows, e. g. they will either send a pull request or merge > > > +patches directly at the media-committers tree. > > > + > > > When patches are picked by patchwork and when merged at media-committers, > > > CI bots will check for errors and may provide e-mail feedback about > > > patch problems. When this happens, the patch submitter must fix them, or > > > diff --git a/Documentation/driver-api/media/media-committer.rst b/Documentation/driver-api/media/media-committer.rst > > > index 3d0987a8a93b..0bc038a0fdcc 100644 > > > --- a/Documentation/driver-api/media/media-committer.rst > > > +++ b/Documentation/driver-api/media/media-committer.rst > > > @@ -90,9 +90,9 @@ be a part of their maintenance tasks. > > > Due to that, to become a committer or a core committer, a consensus between > > > all subsystem maintainers is required, as they all need to trust a developer > > > well enough to be delegated the responsibility to maintain part of the code > > > -and to properly review patches from third parties, in a timely manner and > > > -keeping the status of the reviewed code at https://patchwork.linuxtv.org > > > -updated. > > > +and to properly review patches from third parties for the drivers that they > > > +maintain in a timely manner and keeping the status of the patches at > > > +https://patchwork.linuxtv.org updated. > > > > > > .. Note:: > > > > > > > Looks OK to me, but I thought this was supposed to be folded into the 3/5 and 4/5 patches? > > I'll fold it once you and Ricardo gives the same review/Sob as marked on 3/5 and 4/5. > > > Thanks, > Mauro >
On 12/4/24 13:51, Mauro Carvalho Chehab wrote: > Em Wed, 4 Dec 2024 13:11:45 +0100 > Hans Verkuil <hverkuil@xs4all.nl> escreveu: > >> On 12/3/24 10:35, Mauro Carvalho Chehab wrote: >>> During the review of the media committer's profile, it was noticed >>> that the responsibility for timely review patches was not clear: >>> such review is expected that all developers listed at MAINTAINERS >>> with the "M:" tag (e.g. "maintainers" on its broad sense). >>> >>> This is orthogonal of being a media committer or not. Such duty >>> is implied at: >>> >>> Documentation/admin-guide/reporting-issues.rst >>> >>> and at the MAINTAINERS header, when it says that even when the >>> status is "odd fixes", the patches will flow in. >>> >>> So, let make it explicit at the maintainer-entry-profile that >>> maintainers need to do timely reviews. >>> >>> Also, while right now our focus is on granting committer rights to >>> maintainers, the media-committer model may evolve in the future to >>> accept other committers that don't have such duties. >>> >>> So, make it clear at the media-committer.rst that the duties >>> related to reviewing patches from others are for the drivers >>> they are maintainers as well. >>> >>> Signed-off-by: Mauro Carvalho Chehab <mchehab+huawei@kernel.org> >>> --- >>> Documentation/driver-api/media/maintainer-entry-profile.rst | 5 +++++ >>> Documentation/driver-api/media/media-committer.rst | 6 +++--- >>> 2 files changed, 8 insertions(+), 3 deletions(-) >>> >>> diff --git a/Documentation/driver-api/media/maintainer-entry-profile.rst b/Documentation/driver-api/media/maintainer-entry-profile.rst >>> index fa28059f7b3f..87b71f89b1df 100644 >>> --- a/Documentation/driver-api/media/maintainer-entry-profile.rst >>> +++ b/Documentation/driver-api/media/maintainer-entry-profile.rst >>> @@ -173,6 +173,11 @@ b. Committers' workflow: patches are handled by media committers:: >>> On both workflows, all patches shall be properly reviewed at >>> linux-media@vger.kernel.org (LMML) before being merged at media-committers.git. >>> >>> +Such patches will be reviewed timely by the maintainers and reviewers as >>> +listed in the MAINTAINERS file. The subsystem maintainers will follow one of >>> +the above workflows, e. g. they will either send a pull request or merge >>> +patches directly at the media-committers tree. >>> + >>> When patches are picked by patchwork and when merged at media-committers, >>> CI bots will check for errors and may provide e-mail feedback about >>> patch problems. When this happens, the patch submitter must fix them, or >>> diff --git a/Documentation/driver-api/media/media-committer.rst b/Documentation/driver-api/media/media-committer.rst >>> index 3d0987a8a93b..0bc038a0fdcc 100644 >>> --- a/Documentation/driver-api/media/media-committer.rst >>> +++ b/Documentation/driver-api/media/media-committer.rst >>> @@ -90,9 +90,9 @@ be a part of their maintenance tasks. >>> Due to that, to become a committer or a core committer, a consensus between >>> all subsystem maintainers is required, as they all need to trust a developer >>> well enough to be delegated the responsibility to maintain part of the code >>> -and to properly review patches from third parties, in a timely manner and >>> -keeping the status of the reviewed code at https://patchwork.linuxtv.org >>> -updated. >>> +and to properly review patches from third parties for the drivers that they >>> +maintain in a timely manner and keeping the status of the patches at >>> +https://patchwork.linuxtv.org updated. >>> >>> .. Note:: >>> >> >> Looks OK to me, but I thought this was supposed to be folded into the 3/5 and 4/5 patches? For the record: Reviewed-by: Hans Verkuil <hverkuil@xs4all.nl> You can also add that for patches 1 and 2 (I found them in lore.kernel.org). Regards, Hans > > I'll fold it once you and Ricardo gives the same review/Sob as marked on 3/5 and 4/5. > > > Thanks, > Mauro
diff --git a/Documentation/driver-api/media/maintainer-entry-profile.rst b/Documentation/driver-api/media/maintainer-entry-profile.rst index fa28059f7b3f..87b71f89b1df 100644 --- a/Documentation/driver-api/media/maintainer-entry-profile.rst +++ b/Documentation/driver-api/media/maintainer-entry-profile.rst @@ -173,6 +173,11 @@ b. Committers' workflow: patches are handled by media committers:: On both workflows, all patches shall be properly reviewed at linux-media@vger.kernel.org (LMML) before being merged at media-committers.git. +Such patches will be reviewed timely by the maintainers and reviewers as +listed in the MAINTAINERS file. The subsystem maintainers will follow one of +the above workflows, e. g. they will either send a pull request or merge +patches directly at the media-committers tree. + When patches are picked by patchwork and when merged at media-committers, CI bots will check for errors and may provide e-mail feedback about patch problems. When this happens, the patch submitter must fix them, or diff --git a/Documentation/driver-api/media/media-committer.rst b/Documentation/driver-api/media/media-committer.rst index 3d0987a8a93b..0bc038a0fdcc 100644 --- a/Documentation/driver-api/media/media-committer.rst +++ b/Documentation/driver-api/media/media-committer.rst @@ -90,9 +90,9 @@ be a part of their maintenance tasks. Due to that, to become a committer or a core committer, a consensus between all subsystem maintainers is required, as they all need to trust a developer well enough to be delegated the responsibility to maintain part of the code -and to properly review patches from third parties, in a timely manner and -keeping the status of the reviewed code at https://patchwork.linuxtv.org -updated. +and to properly review patches from third parties for the drivers that they +maintain in a timely manner and keeping the status of the patches at +https://patchwork.linuxtv.org updated. .. Note::
During the review of the media committer's profile, it was noticed that the responsibility for timely review patches was not clear: such review is expected that all developers listed at MAINTAINERS with the "M:" tag (e.g. "maintainers" on its broad sense). This is orthogonal of being a media committer or not. Such duty is implied at: Documentation/admin-guide/reporting-issues.rst and at the MAINTAINERS header, when it says that even when the status is "odd fixes", the patches will flow in. So, let make it explicit at the maintainer-entry-profile that maintainers need to do timely reviews. Also, while right now our focus is on granting committer rights to maintainers, the media-committer model may evolve in the future to accept other committers that don't have such duties. So, make it clear at the media-committer.rst that the duties related to reviewing patches from others are for the drivers they are maintainers as well. Signed-off-by: Mauro Carvalho Chehab <mchehab+huawei@kernel.org> --- Documentation/driver-api/media/maintainer-entry-profile.rst | 5 +++++ Documentation/driver-api/media/media-committer.rst | 6 +++--- 2 files changed, 8 insertions(+), 3 deletions(-)