Ksummit-Discuss Archive on lore.kernel.org
 help / color / Atom feed
From: "Martin K. Petersen" <martin.petersen@oracle.com>
To: Dan Williams <dan.j.williams@intel.com>
Cc: Dave Jiang <dave.jiang@intel.com>,
	ksummit-discuss@lists.linuxfoundation.org,
	linux-nvdimm@lists.01.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org,
	Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@linuxfoundation.org>,
	Steve French <stfrench@microsoft.com>,
	Vishal Verma <vishal.l.verma@intel.com>,
	Mauro Carvalho Chehab <mchehab@kernel.org>,
	Dmitry Vyukov <dvyukov@google.com>,
	"Tobin C. Harding" <me@tobin.cc>
Subject: Re: [Ksummit-discuss] [PATCH v2 0/3] Maintainer Entry Profiles
Date: Wed, 11 Sep 2019 12:40:16 -0400
Message-ID: <yq1o8zqeqhb.fsf@oracle.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <156821692280.2951081.18036584954940423225.stgit@dwillia2-desk3.amr.corp.intel.com> (Dan Williams's message of "Wed, 11 Sep 2019 08:48:42 -0700")


Hi Dan!

> At last years Plumbers Conference I proposed the Maintainer Entry
> Profile as a document that a maintainer can provide to set contributor
> expectations and provide fodder for a discussion between maintainers
> about the merits of different maintainer policies.

This looks pretty good to me.

After the Plumbers session last year I wrote this for SCSI based on a
prior version by Christoph. It's gone a bit stale but I'll update it to
match your template.

-- 
Martin K. Petersen	Oracle Linux Engineering



================================================
Linux SCSI Subsystem Patch Submission Guidelines
================================================
Martin K. Petersen <martin.petersen@oracle.com>


Release cycles and when to submit patches
=========================================
Each release cycle consists of:

* an 8 week submission window in which new core features and driver updates
  are added (scsi-queue)

* a 2 week merge window where it is customary not to post patches

* an 8 week stabilization window before final release where only bug fix
  patches are merged (scsi-fixes)

The submission/stabilization cycle may be shorter or longer than 8 weeks.
However, 8 weeks is the most common. Note that the code *submission window*
for the *next* kernel release overlaps with the *stabilization window* for the
*current* release:

+-------------+---------------------------------+-------------+-----------------
| Week  1 | 2 |  3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 |  11  |  12  | 13 | 14 | .....
+-------------+---------------------------------+-------------+-----------------

+-------------+---------------------------------+-------------+
| 4.x merge   |    4.x stabilization window     | 4.x release |
| window      | rc1 rc2 rc3 rc4 rc5 rc6 rc7 rc8 |             |
+-------------+---------------------------------+-------------+
| Merge fixes | Big bug fixes.............small |   Stable    |
+-------------+---------------------------------+-------------+

              +---------------------------------+-------------+-----------------
              |    4.x+1 submission window      | 4.x+1 merge | 4.x+1 stabili-
              |                                 | window      | zation window
	      |                                 |             | rc1 rc2 rc3 ...
              +---------------------------------+-------------+-----------------
              | Big features/updates......small | Merge fixes | Big bug fixes..
              +---------------------------------+-------------+-----------------


Bug Fixes (4.x/scsi-fixes)
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
During the two week merge window only fixes related to the merge process or
any critical functional deficiences discovered in the newly submitted code
will be merged.

During the subsequent stabilization window (rc cycle) the expectation is that
bug fix patches will become increasingly smaller and simpler. In other words:
There may be enough fallout from a merged driver update to justify sending a
5-patch remedial bug fix series during rc1/rc2. But at the end of the rc cycle
patches must be trivial one-liners.

After the final 4.x has been released, subsequent bug fixes will have to go
through the stable-kernel-rules.rst process.


New Features/Core Code Changes/Driver Updates (4.x+1/scsi-queue)
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
New features for 4.x+1 should be sent to linux-scsi once the merge window is
over. I.e. once rc1 has been released. This ensures there is enough time to
undergo several review cycles before the submission window is closed.

At the end of the submission window (rc7/rc8) the expectation is that posted
patches will be small and fairly simple. No patch series.

Only critical patches are merged during the last (rc8) submission window week
to ensure sufficient zeroday test robot and linux-next coverage before sending
Linus the final pull request.


GIT Trees
=========
The SCSI patch submission trees can be found at:

    git://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/mkp/scsi.git

There are two concurrently active branches:

* 4.x/scsi-fixes for bug fixes to the current kernel rc

* 4.x+1/scsi-queue for new features and driver submissions for the next merge
  window

Both trees are usually based on Linus' 4.x-rc1.

Patches accepted into 4.x/scsi-fixes are typically submitted to Linus on a
weekly basis. Patches accepted into 4.x+1/scsi-queue are submitted at the
beginning of the merge window.

It is sometimes necessary to set up a separate 4.x+1/scsi-postmerge branch
which contains patches that depend on newly merged functionality in other
subsystems such as block or libata. The postmerge tree will be submitted to
Linus at the end of the merge window once all external dependencies have been
merged.


Patch Submission Process
========================
* All modifications to files under drivers/scsi should go through the SCSI
  tree.

* Read Documentation/process/submitting-patches.rst

* Send the patch or patch series to linux-scsi@vger.kernel.org

* Please make sure to Cc: the maintainer of the driver/component you are
  changing.

* Do not use custom To: and Cc: for individual patches. We want to see the
  whole series, even patches that potentially need to go through a different
  subsystem tree.

* Clearly indicate in the introductory letter which tree your submission is
  aimed at (scsi-fixes or scsi-queue). For individual patches you can indicate
  the desired tree below the --- separator.

* As a rule of thumb, any patch that goes through the scsi-fixes tree should
  have a stable tag unless it was a regression introduced in the current
  release.

* If the patch is a bugfix, please add:

    Fixes: 1234deadbeef ("Implement foobarbaz")
    Cc: <stable@vger.kernel.org> # v4.x+

  Where the v4.x indicates when commit 1234deadbeef was added to the kernel.

* When posting a revised patch or series, please manually add any Acked-by:,
  Reviewed-by:, or Tested-by: tags you may have received. Tags are only valid
  if the patch has not changed significantly. Rebasing without conflicts and
  typo fixes are generally OK and do not invalidate tags.

* Please CC: everyone that provided feedback when posting a revised
  patch or series.

* Custom patch number formatting often confuses patchwork. Please use git
  send-email -v instead of manually adding version numbers to individual
  patches. To send version 3 of a 10 patch series from the tip of the current
  tree you can do:

    git send-email -10 -v3 --compose --to=linux-scsi@vger.kernel.org

* Please put a change log after a --- separator in each revised patch. If the
  reason for the repost is global (i.e. a rebase) it is fine to put the
  changelog in the cover letter.


Patch Acceptance Criteria
=========================
* A patch needs two positive reviews (non-author Signed-off-by:, Acked-by:,
  Reviewed-by:, or Tested-by:).

* A Tested-by: is worth a thousand reviews.

* For drivers, at least one review is required from somebody outside the
  submitting company.

* Nobody has expressed any concerns about the patch on linux-scsi.

* The patch must apply cleanly. Use checkpatch and git send-email.

* The patch must compile without warnings (make C=1 CF="-D__CHECK_ENDIAN__")
  and does not incur any zeroday test robot complaints.

* The patch must have a commit message that describes, comprehensively and in
  plain English, what the patch does.

  - Do not link to vendor bugzilla entries that require special access
    credentials. If there is anything of importance in bugzilla, put it in the
    commit message.

  - The bigger and more intrusive the patch, the bigger the accompanying
    commit message needs to be. "fooscsi: Add PCI id for model XYZ" is fine as
    a one-liner. "fooscsi: Rewrite DMA allocation and queue setup" most likely
    needs several paragraphs of discussion in the commit message.


Patch Review Communities
========================
While core SCSI folks generally perform a cursory review of every patch,
it is imperative that contributors with an interest in a particular
component form small communities that can review and test each other's
code. Such informal communities exist for several components or
sub-subsystems underneath the SCSI tree.

The best way to facilitate that your patch gets merged is to review patches
submitted by your fellow contributors and hope that they return the favor.


Patch Reviewer Responsibilities
===============================
If you provide feedback to a patch and the patch author addresses your
concerns in a new version, you are expected to respond to the new
patch. Many code contributions series fail to make forward progress
because reviewers do not ack or nack the changes they requested to be
made. Please make sure to always follow up when your review comments are
being addressed.


Driver Maintainer Responsibilities
==================================
Many of the actively developed SCSI subsystem drivers have one or more
official maintainers. These maintainers are often employed by the company
manufacturing the hardware in question and therefore have a vested interest in
making sure the driver is working correctly.

A driver maintainer must review and respond to *all submitted patches* to the
driver in a timely manner (5 business days). This includes:

* Proposed functional changes to the driver code

* Security fixes

* Trivial and typo patches

* Changes compelled by kernel interface changes

* Patches required to work correctly on architectures not commercially
  supported by the hardware manufacturer


Patch Acceptance Status
=======================
* Submitted patches and their current status can be viewed in patchwork at:

    https://patchwork.kernel.org/project/linux-scsi/list/

* If a submitted patch is not visible in patchwork, it does not exist. Please
  repost.

* If only a portion of a patch series visible in patchwork, the series does
  not exist. Please repost.

* Once a patch has been merged, you will receive a mail indicating into which
  tree it has been accepted.

* Patches that have not received sufficient Acked-by:, Reviewed-by:, or
  Tested-by: tags after two weeks get moved to "Deferred" status. This
  indicates that it necessary to resubmit the patches to the linux-scsi list.

* Patches submitted to linux-scsi but which need to go through another
  subsystem tree will be set to "Not Applicable" status.

* Patches which require rework will be set to "Changes Requested" status.

* Patches which have been obsoleted by a later version will be set to
  "Superceded" status.
_______________________________________________
Ksummit-discuss mailing list
Ksummit-discuss@lists.linuxfoundation.org
https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/ksummit-discuss

  parent reply index

Thread overview: 82+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
2019-09-11 15:48 Dan Williams
2019-09-11 15:48 ` [Ksummit-discuss] [PATCH v2 1/3] MAINTAINERS: Reclaim the P: tag for Maintainer Entry Profile Dan Williams
2019-09-13 15:37   ` Mauro Carvalho Chehab
2019-09-11 15:48 ` [Ksummit-discuss] [PATCH v2 2/3] Maintainer Handbook: " Dan Williams
2019-09-16 12:35   ` Jani Nikula
2019-10-01 13:55   ` Jonathan Corbet
2019-10-01 18:17     ` Martin K. Petersen
2019-11-07 20:13     ` Jonathan Corbet
2019-11-08  2:41       ` Dan Williams
2019-09-11 15:48 ` [Ksummit-discuss] [PATCH v2 3/3] libnvdimm, MAINTAINERS: " Dan Williams
2019-09-11 17:42   ` Vishal Verma
2019-09-11 18:43   ` Dan Carpenter
2019-09-11 22:11     ` Jens Axboe
2019-09-12  7:41       ` Dan Williams
     [not found]         ` <CANiq72k2so3ZcqA3iRziGY=Shd_B1=qGoXXROeAF7Y3+pDmqyA@mail.gmail.com>
2019-09-12 10:18           ` Joe Perches
2019-09-13  7:09       ` Jonathan Corbet
2019-09-13 11:48         ` Dan Carpenter
2019-09-13 12:18           ` Dan Williams
2019-09-13 15:00           ` Randy Dunlap
2019-09-13 15:46             ` Rob Herring
2019-09-13 16:42               ` Joe Perches
2019-09-13 19:32                 ` Rob Herring
2019-09-13 17:57             ` Geert Uytterhoeven
2019-09-16 12:42           ` Jani Nikula
     [not found]           ` <20190917161608.GA12866@ziepe.ca>
2019-09-17 21:59             ` Dan Williams
2019-09-13 21:44       ` Martin K. Petersen
2019-09-16  7:01         ` Dan Carpenter
2019-09-16 17:08           ` Martin K. Petersen
2019-09-16 17:15             ` Mark Brown
2019-09-11 20:30   ` Joe Perches
2019-09-13 16:19   ` [Ksummit-discuss] [PATCH] media: add a subsystem profile documentation Mauro Carvalho Chehab
2019-09-13 16:19     ` Mauro Carvalho Chehab
2019-09-17  3:35     ` [Ksummit-discuss] single maintainer profile directory (was Re: [PATCH] media: add a subsystem profile documentation) Kees Cook
2019-09-17 13:28       ` Mauro Carvalho Chehab
2019-09-17 16:33         ` Kees Cook
2019-09-18 11:23           ` Mauro Carvalho Chehab
2019-09-18 17:39             ` Kees Cook
2019-09-18 18:35               ` Mauro Carvalho Chehab
2019-09-21 19:13             ` Jonathan Corbet
2019-09-21 19:45               ` Mauro Carvalho Chehab
2019-09-23 22:45               ` Kees Cook
2019-09-18 12:36     ` [Ksummit-discuss] [PATCH] media: add a subsystem profile documentation Laurent Pinchart
2019-09-18 13:57       ` Mauro Carvalho Chehab
2019-09-18 17:27         ` Laurent Pinchart
2019-09-18 18:48           ` Mauro Carvalho Chehab
2019-09-19  7:08             ` Dan Carpenter
2019-09-20  5:29               ` Joe Perches
2019-09-20 14:09                 ` Daniel Vetter
2019-09-19  6:56         ` Dan Carpenter
2019-09-19  7:22           ` Geert Uytterhoeven
2019-09-19  8:49             ` Jani Nikula
2019-09-19  8:58               ` Geert Uytterhoeven
2019-09-19  9:52                 ` Jani Nikula
2019-09-20 14:53             ` Laurent Pinchart
2019-09-20 14:59               ` Doug Anderson
2019-09-21  8:56                 ` Jani Nikula
2019-09-23 15:58                   ` Doug Anderson
2019-09-23 16:04                     ` Jonathan Corbet
2019-09-19  9:52           ` Mauro Carvalho Chehab
2019-09-25 17:13           ` Joe Perches
2019-09-25 18:40             ` Kees Cook
2019-09-26 15:14               ` Joe Perches
2019-09-26 15:53                 ` Kees Cook
2019-09-26 16:02                   ` Joe Perches
2019-09-26 16:24                     ` Kees Cook
2019-09-26 10:25             ` Geert Uytterhoeven
2019-09-18 13:59       ` [Ksummit-discuss] [PATCH v2] " Mauro Carvalho Chehab
     [not found]         ` <1e479f17-dbc8-b44d-bd1e-4229a6dbf151@collabora.com>
2019-09-18 14:11           ` Mauro Carvalho Chehab
2019-09-11 16:40 ` Martin K. Petersen [this message]
2019-09-12 13:31   ` [Ksummit-discuss] [PATCH v2 0/3] Maintainer Entry Profiles Bart Van Assche
2019-09-12 15:34     ` Joe Perches
2019-09-12 20:01       ` Bart Van Assche
2019-09-12 20:34         ` Joe Perches
2019-09-13 14:26           ` Rob Herring
2019-09-13 18:42             ` Joe Perches
2019-09-13 19:17               ` Mauro Carvalho Chehab
2019-09-13 20:33                 ` Joe Perches
2019-09-13 12:56         ` Matthew Wilcox
2019-09-13 13:54           ` Mauro Carvalho Chehab
2019-09-13 14:59             ` Guenter Roeck
2019-09-13 22:03     ` Martin K. Petersen
2019-09-12 13:10 ` Bart Van Assche

Reply instructions:

You may reply publically to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:

* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
  and reply-to-all from there: mbox

  Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style

* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
  switches of git-send-email(1):

  git send-email \
    --in-reply-to=yq1o8zqeqhb.fsf@oracle.com \
    --to=martin.petersen@oracle.com \
    --cc=dan.j.williams@intel.com \
    --cc=dave.jiang@intel.com \
    --cc=dvyukov@google.com \
    --cc=gregkh@linuxfoundation.org \
    --cc=ksummit-discuss@lists.linuxfoundation.org \
    --cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
    --cc=linux-nvdimm@lists.01.org \
    --cc=mchehab@kernel.org \
    --cc=me@tobin.cc \
    --cc=stfrench@microsoft.com \
    --cc=vishal.l.verma@intel.com \
    /path/to/YOUR_REPLY

  https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html

* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
  via mailto: links, try the mailto: link

Ksummit-Discuss Archive on lore.kernel.org

Archives are clonable:
	git clone --mirror https://lore.kernel.org/ksummit-discuss/0 ksummit-discuss/git/0.git

	# If you have public-inbox 1.1+ installed, you may
	# initialize and index your mirror using the following commands:
	public-inbox-init -V2 ksummit-discuss ksummit-discuss/ https://lore.kernel.org/ksummit-discuss \
		ksummit-discuss@lists.linuxfoundation.org
	public-inbox-index ksummit-discuss

Example config snippet for mirrors

Newsgroup available over NNTP:
	nntp://nntp.lore.kernel.org/org.linuxfoundation.lists.ksummit-discuss


AGPL code for this site: git clone https://public-inbox.org/public-inbox.git