Messages in this thread | | | Subject | Re: Status of Subsystems | From | "Enrico Weigelt, metux IT consult" <> | Date | Wed, 21 Aug 2019 14:10:13 +0200 |
| |
On 20.08.19 19:15, Theodore Y. Ts'o wrote:
Hi,
> There are some files which have no official > owner, and there are also some files which may be modified by more > than one subsystem.
hmm, wouldn't it be better to alway have explicit maintainers ?
I recall some discussion few weeks ago on some of my patches, where it turned out that amm acts as fallback for a lot of code that doesn't have a maintainer.
@Sebastian: maybe you could also create reports for quickly identifying those cases.
> We certainly don't talk about "inheritance" when we talk about > maintainers and sub-maintainers.
What's the exact definition of the term "sub-maintainer" ?
Somebody who's maintaining some defined part of something bigger (eg. a driver within some subsystem, some platform within some arch, etc) or kinda deputee maintainer ?
> Furthermore, the relationships, > processes, and workflows between a particular maintainer and their > submaintainers can be unique to a particular maintainer.
Can we somehow find some (semi-formal) description for those relationships and workflows, so it's easier to learn about them when some is new to some particular area ?
(I'd volounteer maintaining such documentation, if the individual maintainers feed me the necessary information ;-)).
--mtx
-- Enrico Weigelt, metux IT consult Free software and Linux embedded engineering info@metux.net -- +49-151-27565287
| |