On 5/9/19 12:16 PM, Ian Jackson wrote:
> George Dunlap writes ("[PATCH] MAINTAINERS: Add explicit check-in policy
> section"):
>> + Check-in policy
>> + ===============
>> +
>> +In order for a patch to be checked in, in general, several conditions
>> +must be met:
>
> I think it is very helpful to write guidelines, but I am opposed to
> declaring this as a rigid policy.
The phrase "in general" was meant to indicate that it was not a rigid
policy, but... well, a general one, which was understood may not apply
in exceptional circumstances.
> In particular as committer I often bend the rules (I guess, I mean,
> insofar as we have rules, I do things that feel like bending them).
[snip]
> Does this make sense ?
Sure, but is this not already covered by the section at the end of "The
meaning of nesting"? Or are you specifically thinking of a case where
1) you write the fix, and 2) nobody from THE REST is around to provide
an "stand-in for the more specific maintainer" Ack?
If the latter, we can certainly add some text to say that in such an
exceptional circumstance, a committer may act unilaterally.
I think in general, first the specific maintainer's Ack ought to be
sought; and if that cannot be found, then a then more general
maintainer's Ack should be sought; and if there is nobody from the most
general set of maintainers (THE REST) other than the submitter of the
patch, then the submitter/committer should make a call as to whether to
act unilaterally or to wait. In all cases where a more general
maintainer has stood in for a more specific maintainer, they should be
prepared to defend their choice.
Is that what you had in mind?
-George
_______________________________________________
Xen-devel mailing list
[email protected]
https://lists.xenproject.org/mailman/listinfo/xen-devel
