During the review of the media committes profile, it was noticed
that the responsibility for timely review patches was not clear:
such review is expected that all developers listed at MAINTAINERS
with the "M:" tag (e.g. "maintainers" on its broad sense).
This is orthogonal of being a media committer or not. Such duty
is implied at:
Documentation/admin-guide/reporting-issues.rst
and at the MAINTAINERS header, when it says that even when the
status is "odd fixes", the patches will flow in.
So, let make it explicit at the maintainer-entry-profile that
maintainers need to do timely reviews.
Also, while right now our focus is on granting committer rights to
maintainers, the media-committer model may evolve in the future to
accept other committers that don't have such duties.
So, make it clear at the media-committer.rst that the duties
related to reviewing patches from others are for the drivers
they are maintainers as well.
Signed-off-by: Mauro Carvalho Chehab <mchehab+huawei@kernel.org>
---
Documentation/driver-api/media/maintainer-entry-profile.rst | 5 +++++
Documentation/driver-api/media/media-committer.rst | 6 +++---
2 files changed, 8 insertions(+), 3 deletions(-)
diff --git a/Documentation/driver-api/media/maintainer-entry-profile.rst b/Documentation/driver-api/media/maintainer-entry-profile.rst
index 705209eacf58..50568c744129 100644
--- a/Documentation/driver-api/media/maintainer-entry-profile.rst
+++ b/Documentation/driver-api/media/maintainer-entry-profile.rst
@@ -153,6 +153,11 @@ b. Committers' workflow: patches are handled by media committers::
On both workflows, all patches shall be properly reviewed at
linux-media@vger.kernel.org before being merged at media-committers.git.
+Such patches will be timely-reviewed by developers listed as maintainers at
+the MAINTAINERS file. Such maintainers will follow one of the above
+workflows, e. g. they will either send a pull request or merge patches
+directly at the media-committers tree.
+
When patches are picked by patchwork and when merged at media-committers,
CI bots will check for errors and may provide e-mail feedback about
patch problems. When this happens, the patch submitter must fix them, or
diff --git a/Documentation/driver-api/media/media-committer.rst b/Documentation/driver-api/media/media-committer.rst
index 3c2f8f413307..ec81f01db126 100644
--- a/Documentation/driver-api/media/media-committer.rst
+++ b/Documentation/driver-api/media/media-committer.rst
@@ -87,9 +87,9 @@ be delegating part of their maintenance tasks.
Due to that, to become a committer or a core committer, a consensus between
all subsystem maintainers is required, as they all need to trust a developer
well enough to be delegated the responsibility to maintain part of the code
-and to properly review patches from third parties, in a timely manner and
-keeping the status of the reviewed code at https://patchwork.linuxtv.org
-updated.
+and to properly review patches from third parties for the drivers they are
+maintainers in a timely manner and keeping the status of the reviewed code
+at https://patchwork.linuxtv.org updated.
.. Note::
--
2.47.1Hi Mauro, On Mon, Dec 02, 2024 at 10:26:21AM +0100, Mauro Carvalho Chehab wrote: > During the review of the media committes profile, it was noticed s/committe\K/r/ > that the responsibility for timely review patches was not clear: > such review is expected that all developers listed at MAINTAINERS > with the "M:" tag (e.g. "maintainers" on its broad sense). > > This is orthogonal of being a media committer or not. Such duty > is implied at: > > Documentation/admin-guide/reporting-issues.rst > > and at the MAINTAINERS header, when it says that even when the > status is "odd fixes", the patches will flow in. > > So, let make it explicit at the maintainer-entry-profile that > maintainers need to do timely reviews. > > Also, while right now our focus is on granting committer rights to > maintainers, the media-committer model may evolve in the future to > accept other committers that don't have such duties. > > So, make it clear at the media-committer.rst that the duties > related to reviewing patches from others are for the drivers > they are maintainers as well. > > Signed-off-by: Mauro Carvalho Chehab <mchehab+huawei@kernel.org> > --- > Documentation/driver-api/media/maintainer-entry-profile.rst | 5 +++++ > Documentation/driver-api/media/media-committer.rst | 6 +++--- > 2 files changed, 8 insertions(+), 3 deletions(-) > > diff --git a/Documentation/driver-api/media/maintainer-entry-profile.rst b/Documentation/driver-api/media/maintainer-entry-profile.rst > index 705209eacf58..50568c744129 100644 > --- a/Documentation/driver-api/media/maintainer-entry-profile.rst > +++ b/Documentation/driver-api/media/maintainer-entry-profile.rst > @@ -153,6 +153,11 @@ b. Committers' workflow: patches are handled by media committers:: > On both workflows, all patches shall be properly reviewed at > linux-media@vger.kernel.org before being merged at media-committers.git. > > +Such patches will be timely-reviewed by developers listed as maintainers at > +the MAINTAINERS file. Such maintainers will follow one of the above I'd put this as: Such patches will be reviewed timely by the maintainers and reviewers as listed in the MAINTAINERS file. > +workflows, e. g. they will either send a pull request or merge patches > +directly at the media-committers tree. Can we expect people listed as maintainers to either send PRs or be media committers? I think this might be eventually the result but I think we're quite far from this currently and I expect things to remain that way in the near future. > + > When patches are picked by patchwork and when merged at media-committers, > CI bots will check for errors and may provide e-mail feedback about > patch problems. When this happens, the patch submitter must fix them, or > diff --git a/Documentation/driver-api/media/media-committer.rst b/Documentation/driver-api/media/media-committer.rst > index 3c2f8f413307..ec81f01db126 100644 > --- a/Documentation/driver-api/media/media-committer.rst > +++ b/Documentation/driver-api/media/media-committer.rst > @@ -87,9 +87,9 @@ be delegating part of their maintenance tasks. > Due to that, to become a committer or a core committer, a consensus between > all subsystem maintainers is required, as they all need to trust a developer > well enough to be delegated the responsibility to maintain part of the code > -and to properly review patches from third parties, in a timely manner and > -keeping the status of the reviewed code at https://patchwork.linuxtv.org > -updated. > +and to properly review patches from third parties for the drivers they are > +maintainers in a timely manner and keeping the status of the reviewed code s/code/patches/ > +at https://patchwork.linuxtv.org updated. > > .. Note:: > -- Kind regards, Sakari Ailus
Em Mon, 2 Dec 2024 14:48:53 +0000 Sakari Ailus <sakari.ailus@iki.fi> escreveu: > Hi Mauro, > > On Mon, Dec 02, 2024 at 10:26:21AM +0100, Mauro Carvalho Chehab wrote: > > During the review of the media committes profile, it was noticed > > s/committe\K/r/ Addressed this and the other editorial changes. > Can we expect people listed as maintainers to either send PRs or be media > committers? I think this might be eventually the result but I think we're > quite far from this currently and I expect things to remain that way in the > near future. Yes, having driver maintainers being committers and sending PRs is what we expect to happen first. For mid/long-term, once driver maintainers get in board, we may also have other committers for the drivers whose maintainer is also a committer. Now, having committers for drivers whose maintainer is not a committer doesn't sound a good idea, except if such committer is doing just janitorial work and gets A-B/R-B from the driver maintainer on all patches he merges. Thanks, Mauro
Hi Mauro, On Tue, Dec 03, 2024 at 10:28:46AM +0100, Mauro Carvalho Chehab wrote: > Em Mon, 2 Dec 2024 14:48:53 +0000 > Sakari Ailus <sakari.ailus@iki.fi> escreveu: > > > Hi Mauro, > > > > On Mon, Dec 02, 2024 at 10:26:21AM +0100, Mauro Carvalho Chehab wrote: > > > During the review of the media committes profile, it was noticed > > > > s/committe\K/r/ > > Addressed this and the other editorial changes. > > > Can we expect people listed as maintainers to either send PRs or be media > > committers? I think this might be eventually the result but I think we're > > quite far from this currently and I expect things to remain that way in the > > near future. > > Yes, having driver maintainers being committers and sending PRs is what we > expect to happen first. > > For mid/long-term, once driver maintainers get in board, we may also have > other committers for the drivers whose maintainer is also a committer. > > Now, having committers for drivers whose maintainer is not a committer > doesn't sound a good idea, except if such committer is doing just > janitorial work and gets A-B/R-B from the driver maintainer on all > patches he merges. I meant primarily people listed in MAINTAINERS but who are at least not yet Media committers. -- Kind regards, Sakari Ailus
On 02/12/2024 10:26, Mauro Carvalho Chehab wrote: > During the review of the media committes profile, it was noticed > that the responsibility for timely review patches was not clear: > such review is expected that all developers listed at MAINTAINERS > with the "M:" tag (e.g. "maintainers" on its broad sense). > > This is orthogonal of being a media committer or not. Such duty > is implied at: > > Documentation/admin-guide/reporting-issues.rst > > and at the MAINTAINERS header, when it says that even when the > status is "odd fixes", the patches will flow in. > > So, let make it explicit at the maintainer-entry-profile that > maintainers need to do timely reviews. > > Also, while right now our focus is on granting committer rights to > maintainers, the media-committer model may evolve in the future to > accept other committers that don't have such duties. > > So, make it clear at the media-committer.rst that the duties > related to reviewing patches from others are for the drivers > they are maintainers as well. > > Signed-off-by: Mauro Carvalho Chehab <mchehab+huawei@kernel.org> > --- > Documentation/driver-api/media/maintainer-entry-profile.rst | 5 +++++ > Documentation/driver-api/media/media-committer.rst | 6 +++--- > 2 files changed, 8 insertions(+), 3 deletions(-) > > diff --git a/Documentation/driver-api/media/maintainer-entry-profile.rst b/Documentation/driver-api/media/maintainer-entry-profile.rst > index 705209eacf58..50568c744129 100644 > --- a/Documentation/driver-api/media/maintainer-entry-profile.rst > +++ b/Documentation/driver-api/media/maintainer-entry-profile.rst > @@ -153,6 +153,11 @@ b. Committers' workflow: patches are handled by media committers:: > On both workflows, all patches shall be properly reviewed at > linux-media@vger.kernel.org before being merged at media-committers.git. > > +Such patches will be timely-reviewed by developers listed as maintainers at at -> in > +the MAINTAINERS file. Such maintainers will follow one of the above > +workflows, e. g. they will either send a pull request or merge patches e. g. -> e.g. > +directly at the media-committers tree. > + > When patches are picked by patchwork and when merged at media-committers, > CI bots will check for errors and may provide e-mail feedback about > patch problems. When this happens, the patch submitter must fix them, or > diff --git a/Documentation/driver-api/media/media-committer.rst b/Documentation/driver-api/media/media-committer.rst > index 3c2f8f413307..ec81f01db126 100644 > --- a/Documentation/driver-api/media/media-committer.rst > +++ b/Documentation/driver-api/media/media-committer.rst > @@ -87,9 +87,9 @@ be delegating part of their maintenance tasks. > Due to that, to become a committer or a core committer, a consensus between > all subsystem maintainers is required, as they all need to trust a developer > well enough to be delegated the responsibility to maintain part of the code > -and to properly review patches from third parties, in a timely manner and > -keeping the status of the reviewed code at https://patchwork.linuxtv.org > -updated. > +and to properly review patches from third parties for the drivers they are they are maintainers -> that they maintain > +maintainers in a timely manner and keeping the status of the reviewed code reviewed code -> patches > +at https://patchwork.linuxtv.org updated. > > .. Note:: > Regards, Hans
© 2016 - 2026 Red Hat, Inc.