From 4699c504e603e2b4e6217a81839d06c26cb2dad7 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001 From: Dan Williams Date: Sun, 24 Nov 2019 12:59:53 -0800 Subject: Maintainer Handbook: Maintainer Entry Profile As presented at the 2018 Linux Plumbers conference [1], the Maintainer Entry Profile (formerly Subsystem Profile) is proposed as a way to reduce friction between committers and maintainers and encourage conversations amongst maintainers about common best practices. While coding-style, submit-checklist, and submitting-drivers lay out some common expectations there remain local customs and maintainer preferences that vary by subsystem. The profile contains documentation of some of the common policy questions a contributor might have that are local to the subsystem / device-driver, special considerations for the subsystem, or other guidelines that are otherwise not covered by the top-level process documents. The initial and hopefully non-controversial headings in the profile are: Overview: General introduction to how the subsystem operates Submit Checklist Addendum: Mechanical items that gate submission staging, or other requirements that gate patch acceptance. Key Cycle Dates: - Last -rc for new feature submissions: Expected lead time for submissions - Last -rc to merge features: Deadline for merge decisions Resubmit Cadence: When and preferred method to follow up with the maintainer Note that coding style guidelines are explicitly left out of this list. See Documentation/maintainer/maintainer-entry-profile.rst for more details, and a follow-on example profile for the libnvdimm subsystem. [1]: https://linuxplumbersconf.org/event/2/contributions/59/ Cc: Jonathan Corbet Cc: Thomas Gleixner Cc: Mauro Carvalho Chehab Cc: Steve French Cc: Greg Kroah-Hartman Cc: Linus Torvalds Cc: Tobin C. Harding Cc: Olof Johansson Cc: Martin K. Petersen Cc: Daniel Vetter Cc: Joe Perches Cc: Dmitry Vyukov Cc: Alexandre Belloni Cc: Paul Walmsley Signed-off-by: Dan Williams Link: https://lore.kernel.org/r/157462919309.1729495.10585699280061787229.stgit@dwillia2-desk3.amr.corp.intel.com Signed-off-by: Jonathan Corbet --- Documentation/maintainer/index.rst | 1 + .../maintainer/maintainer-entry-profile.rst | 87 ++++++++++++++++++++++ 2 files changed, 88 insertions(+) create mode 100644 Documentation/maintainer/maintainer-entry-profile.rst (limited to 'Documentation/maintainer') diff --git a/Documentation/maintainer/index.rst b/Documentation/maintainer/index.rst index 56e2c09dfa39..d904e74e1159 100644 --- a/Documentation/maintainer/index.rst +++ b/Documentation/maintainer/index.rst @@ -12,4 +12,5 @@ additions to this manual. configure-git rebasing-and-merging pull-requests + maintainer-entry-profile diff --git a/Documentation/maintainer/maintainer-entry-profile.rst b/Documentation/maintainer/maintainer-entry-profile.rst new file mode 100644 index 000000000000..51de3b9e606d --- /dev/null +++ b/Documentation/maintainer/maintainer-entry-profile.rst @@ -0,0 +1,87 @@ +.. _maintainerentryprofile: + +Maintainer Entry Profile +======================== + +The Maintainer Entry Profile supplements the top-level process documents +(submitting-patches, submitting drivers...) with +subsystem/device-driver-local customs as well as details about the patch +submission life-cycle. A contributor uses this document to level set +their expectations and avoid common mistakes, maintainers may use these +profiles to look across subsystems for opportunities to converge on +common practices. + + +Overview +-------- +Provide an introduction to how the subsystem operates. While MAINTAINERS +tells the contributor where to send patches for which files, it does not +convey other subsystem-local infrastructure and mechanisms that aid +development. +Example questions to consider: +- Are there notifications when patches are applied to the local tree, or + merged upstream? +- Does the subsystem have a patchwork instance? Are patchwork state + changes notified? +- Any bots or CI infrastructure that watches the list, or automated + testing feedback that the subsystem gates acceptance? +- Git branches that are pulled into -next? +- What branch should contributors submit against? +- Links to any other Maintainer Entry Profiles? For example a + device-driver may point to an entry for its parent subsystem. This makes + the contributor aware of obligations a maintainer may have have for + other maintainers in the submission chain. + + +Submit Checklist Addendum +------------------------- +List mandatory and advisory criteria, beyond the common "submit-checklist", +for a patch to be considered healthy enough for maintainer attention. +For example: "pass checkpatch.pl with no errors, or warning. Pass the +unit test detailed at $URI". + +The Submit Checklist Addendum can also include details about the status +of related hardware specifications. For example, does the subsystem +require published specifications at a certain revision before patches +will be considered. + + +Key Cycle Dates +--------------- +One of the common misunderstandings of submitters is that patches can be +sent at any time before the merge window closes and can still be +considered for the next -rc1. The reality is that most patches need to +be settled in soaking in linux-next in advance of the merge window +opening. Clarify for the submitter the key dates (in terms rc release +week) that patches might considered for merging and when patches need to +wait for the next -rc. At a minimum: +- Last -rc for new feature submissions: + New feature submissions targeting the next merge window should have + their first posting for consideration before this point. Patches that + are submitted after this point should be clear that they are targeting + the NEXT+1 merge window, or should come with sufficient justification + why they should be considered on an expedited schedule. A general + guideline is to set expectation with contributors that new feature + submissions should appear before -rc5. + +- Last -rc to merge features: Deadline for merge decisions + Indicate to contributors the point at which an as yet un-applied patch + set will need to wait for the NEXT+1 merge window. Of course there is no + obligation to ever except any given patchset, but if the review has not + concluded by this point the expectation the contributor should wait and + resubmit for the following merge window. + +Optional: +- First -rc at which the development baseline branch, listed in the + overview section, should be considered ready for new submissions. + + +Review Cadence +-------------- +One of the largest sources of contributor angst is how soon to ping +after a patchset has been posted without receiving any feedback. In +addition to specifying how long to wait before a resubmission this +section can also indicate a preferred style of update like, resend the +full series, or privately send a reminder email. This section might also +list how review works for this code area and methods to get feedback +that are not directly from the maintainer. -- cgit v1.2.3-59-g8ed1b