[Ksummit-2013-discuss] [ATTEND] DT, maintainership, development process
Jiri Kosina
jkosina at suse.cz
Mon Jul 29 16:39:43 UTC 2013
On Mon, 29 Jul 2013, Takashi Iwai wrote:
> In the case of stable kernels, there is a review phase, where the
> patches aren't committed to the git tree yet. It happens often that
> inappropriate patches are dropped during it. If the processing is
> changed to use a git pull, we'll have to add a revert commit instead
> of dropping a patch, which is messy as a stable tree. This is a
> disadvantage of git pull, at least.
The merit of my proposal really is about shifting the responsibility.
Stable team is now sending patches (collected in a rather fuzzy way) out
for review, and they get passively approved. It's not clear who is then
responsible for the patch having been applied to -stable. Is the the patch
author, is it someone in the SOB chain, is it stable team?
With pull requests, there is a person who can be clearly identified as
responsible -- the maintainer (with stable team also having their portion
of responsibility of course for actually pulling the branch).
How the patches that end up in the for-stable branch are reviewed is
completely up to the particular subsystem (and will very likely copy the
review process that is happening in that particular subsystem for Linus'
tree already).
--
Jiri Kosina
SUSE Labs
More information about the Ksummit-2013-discuss
mailing list