maintainer-entry-profile.rst 4.2 KB

123456789101112131415161718192021222324252627282930313233343536373839404142434445464748495051525354555657585960616263646566676869707172737475767778798081828384858687888990919293949596979899100101102103104
  1. .. _maintainerentryprofile:
  2. Maintainer Entry Profile
  3. ========================
  4. The Maintainer Entry Profile supplements the top-level process documents
  5. (submitting-patches, submitting drivers...) with
  6. subsystem/device-driver-local customs as well as details about the patch
  7. submission life-cycle. A contributor uses this document to level set
  8. their expectations and avoid common mistakes; maintainers may use these
  9. profiles to look across subsystems for opportunities to converge on
  10. common practices.
  11. Overview
  12. --------
  13. Provide an introduction to how the subsystem operates. While MAINTAINERS
  14. tells the contributor where to send patches for which files, it does not
  15. convey other subsystem-local infrastructure and mechanisms that aid
  16. development.
  17. Example questions to consider:
  18. - Are there notifications when patches are applied to the local tree, or
  19. merged upstream?
  20. - Does the subsystem have a patchwork instance? Are patchwork state
  21. changes notified?
  22. - Any bots or CI infrastructure that watches the list, or automated
  23. testing feedback that the subsystem uses to gate acceptance?
  24. - Git branches that are pulled into -next?
  25. - What branch should contributors submit against?
  26. - Links to any other Maintainer Entry Profiles? For example a
  27. device-driver may point to an entry for its parent subsystem. This makes
  28. the contributor aware of obligations a maintainer may have for
  29. other maintainers in the submission chain.
  30. Submit Checklist Addendum
  31. -------------------------
  32. List mandatory and advisory criteria, beyond the common "submit-checklist",
  33. for a patch to be considered healthy enough for maintainer attention.
  34. For example: "pass checkpatch.pl with no errors, or warning. Pass the
  35. unit test detailed at $URI".
  36. The Submit Checklist Addendum can also include details about the status
  37. of related hardware specifications. For example, does the subsystem
  38. require published specifications at a certain revision before patches
  39. will be considered.
  40. Key Cycle Dates
  41. ---------------
  42. One of the common misunderstandings of submitters is that patches can be
  43. sent at any time before the merge window closes and can still be
  44. considered for the next -rc1. The reality is that most patches need to
  45. be settled in soaking in linux-next in advance of the merge window
  46. opening. Clarify for the submitter the key dates (in terms of -rc release
  47. week) that patches might be considered for merging and when patches need to
  48. wait for the next -rc. At a minimum:
  49. - Last -rc for new feature submissions:
  50. New feature submissions targeting the next merge window should have
  51. their first posting for consideration before this point. Patches that
  52. are submitted after this point should be clear that they are targeting
  53. the NEXT+1 merge window, or should come with sufficient justification
  54. why they should be considered on an expedited schedule. A general
  55. guideline is to set expectation with contributors that new feature
  56. submissions should appear before -rc5.
  57. - Last -rc to merge features: Deadline for merge decisions
  58. Indicate to contributors the point at which an as yet un-applied patch
  59. set will need to wait for the NEXT+1 merge window. Of course there is no
  60. obligation to ever accept any given patchset, but if the review has not
  61. concluded by this point the expectation is the contributor should wait and
  62. resubmit for the following merge window.
  63. Optional:
  64. - First -rc at which the development baseline branch, listed in the
  65. overview section, should be considered ready for new submissions.
  66. Review Cadence
  67. --------------
  68. One of the largest sources of contributor angst is how soon to ping
  69. after a patchset has been posted without receiving any feedback. In
  70. addition to specifying how long to wait before a resubmission this
  71. section can also indicate a preferred style of update like, resend the
  72. full series, or privately send a reminder email. This section might also
  73. list how review works for this code area and methods to get feedback
  74. that are not directly from the maintainer.
  75. Existing profiles
  76. -----------------
  77. For now, existing maintainer profiles are listed here; we will likely want
  78. to do something different in the near future.
  79. .. toctree::
  80. :maxdepth: 1
  81. ../doc-guide/maintainer-profile
  82. ../nvdimm/maintainer-entry-profile
  83. ../riscv/patch-acceptance