Re: [PATCH] MAINTAINERS: Add explicit check-in policy section

From: Ian Jackson <ian.jackson@citrix.com>
To: George Dunlap <george.dunlap@citrix.com>
Cc: Lars Kurth <lars.kurth@citrix.com>,
	Stefano Stabellini <sstabellini@kernel.org>,
	Wei Liu <wei.liu2@citrix.com>,
	Konrad Wilk <konrad.wilk@oracle.com>,
	Andrew Cooper <Andrew.Cooper3@citrix.com>,
	"Tim (Xen.org)" <tim@xen.org>,
	Julien Grall <julien.grall@arm.com>,
	Jan Beulich <jbeulich@suse.com>,
	"xen-devel@lists.xenproject.org" <xen-devel@lists.xenproject.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] MAINTAINERS: Add explicit check-in policy section
Date: Thu, 9 May 2019 12:16:42 +0100	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <23764.3098.687128.584532@mariner.uk.xensource.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20190508113947.11920-1-george.dunlap@citrix.com>

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.

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).
I do this when ISTM that all the "relevant" people either have
approved, or will approve of my action when they find out about it.

I may be wrong but I don't think I have ever caused anyone to feel
like I overstepped a boundary, by deliberately (for example)
committing something which seems to lack an appropriate ack.
(That's not to say that I don't make errors; but that is rather a
different question.)

At the very least, I am often very keen to commit things which unbreak
recent serious regressions, eg which unbreak the build.  I have even
on occasion done a substantive review of a patch, as part of
convincing myself that the maintainer will approve of it (or at least,
approve of my decision to commit it).

I'm not sure exactly how to codify this.  For me the key test is:
if I do this, is anyone going to be annoyed because they felt their
ack should have been waited for *and they wouldn't have granted it*;
ie, they felt the patch ought not to have been committed.  If that
were to happen I would have to apologise and recalibrate my
understanding of when such a thing is appropriate (and this might
indeed depend on which maintainer(s) were involved, etc.)

Obviously the best way to avoid such friction is to wait for the
explicit ack, and chase it if need be; but sometimes (not usually, but
occasionally) that is not practical for whatever reason.

Does this make sense ?

Regards,
Ian.

_______________________________________________
Xen-devel mailing list
Xen-devel@lists.xenproject.org
https://lists.xenproject.org/mailman/listinfo/xen-devel