On Tue, Apr 16, 2013 at 09:15:06PM -0500, Rob Landley wrote:
> On 04/15/2013 12:33:34 PM, Sarah Sharp wrote:
> >Outline how often it's polite to ping kernel maintainers about
> >bugs, and
> >suggest that kernel maintainers should respond to bugs in 1 to 5
> >business days.
>
> Is there anything in here about the four-level nature of modern
> maintainership?
>
> Patches go from the developer, to the maintainer, to one of Linus's
> lieutenants, to Linus himself. If you submit a patch to a maintainer
> they owe you a response. The lieutenant (subsystem maintainer) owes
> that maintainer a response, and Linus (the project's architect) owes
> the lieutenant a response.
Do we want to go into this much detail in a document meant for
frustrated bug reporters? Or perhaps we should create a separate
document about the kernel maintainer hierarchy and reference it here?
Also, please note that I'm writing this from the perspective of a driver
maintainer. I'm not sure if we've met face to face. :)
> Linus does not owe you, personally, a response. Neither do the...
> subsystem maintainers if you approach them directly with something
> that should have gone through one of the hundreds of domain-specific
> maintainers out of the Maintainers file. So the point of going to
> the right people in sequence and getting their review and
> signed-off-by lines is to ensure you don't sit there listening to
> crickets chirping while your patch is ignored. (If you approach
> Linus directly you may randomly _get_ a response, but there's no
> guarantee, and usually you won't because he's really busy.)
This file is about bug reporting, not submitting patches. I rewrote
TLDR version: Yes, it would be nice if bug reporters could go up the
hierarchy, but they don't have an easy way to know which subsystem
maintainers to contact. Perhaps a new line in MAINTAINERS for the
subsystem maintainer would be helpful?