On 08/05/2019 13:39, 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 > maintaniers, but not for situations where there is only one > maintianer. > > 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. > > Signed-off-by: George Dunlap <[email protected]> > --- > CC: Ian Jackson <[email protected]> > CC: Wei Liu <[email protected]> > CC: Andrew Cooper <[email protected]> > CC: Jan Beulich <[email protected]> > CC: Tim Deegan <[email protected]> > CC: Konrad Wilk <[email protected]> > CC: Stefano Stabellini <[email protected]> > CC: Julien Grall <[email protected]> > CC: Lars Kurth <[email protected]> > > This is a follow-up to the discussion in `[PATCH for-4.12] > passthrough/vtd: Drop the "workaround_bios_bug" logic entirely`, specifically > Message-ID: <[email protected]> > > This encodes my understanding of the policy, and what I think is the > best one. > > A second approach would 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. > > A third approach would be to say that in the case of multiple > maintainers, the maintainers themselves can decide to mandate the > other maintainer's Ack. For instance, Dario and I could agree that we > don't need each others' ack for changes to the scheduler, but Andy and > Jan could agree that they do need each other's Ack for changes to the > x86 code.
What about variant 2b: 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 the submitter is a maintainer of a modified file it must have an Ack or Review from either a "nested" maintainer or a Designated reviewer of that file. > --- > MAINTAINERS | 46 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++------ > 1 file changed, 40 insertions(+), 6 deletions(-) > > diff --git a/MAINTAINERS b/MAINTAINERS > index e43388ddb0..65ba35f02d 100644 > --- a/MAINTAINERS > +++ b/MAINTAINERS > @@ -99,7 +99,46 @@ Descriptions of section entries: > One regex pattern per line. Multiple K: lines acceptable. > > > -The meaning of nesting: > + Check-in policy > + =============== > + > +In order for a patch to be checked in, in general, several conditions > +must be met: > + > +1. In order to get a change to a given file committed, it must have > + the approval of at least one maintainer of that file. > + > + A patch of course needs acks from the maintainers of each file that > + it changes; so a patch which changes xen/arch/x86/traps.c, > + xen/arch/x86/mm/p2m.c, and xen/arch/x86/mm/shadow/multi.c would > + require an Ack from each of the three sets of maintainers. > + > + See below for rules on nested maintainership. > + > +2. It must have an Acked-by or a Reviewed-by from someone other than > + the submitter. > + > +3. Sufficient time must have been given for anyone to respond. This > + depends in large part upon the urgency and nature of the patch. > + For a straightforward uncontroversial patch, a day or two is > + sufficient; for a controversial patch, longer (maybe a week) would > + be better. > + > +4. There must be no "open" objections. > + > +In a case where one person submits a patch and a maintainer gives an > +Ack, the Ack stands in for both the approval requirement (#1) and the > +Acked-by-non-submitter requirement (#2). > + > +In a case where a maintainer themselves submits a patch, the > +Signed-off-by meets the approval requriment (#1); so an Ack or Review > +from anyone in the community suffices for requirement #2. > + > +Maintainers may choose to override non-maintainer objections in the > +case that consensus can't be reached. > + > + The meaning of nesting > + ====================== Everywhere else tabs are used for indenting. Juergen _______________________________________________ Xen-devel mailing list [email protected] https://lists.xenproject.org/mailman/listinfo/xen-devel
