Re: [PATCH docs v3] docs: maintainer: document expectations of small time maintainers

[Jonathan Corbet]

Jakub Kicinski <kuba@xxxxxxxxxx> writes:

> We appear to have a gap in our process docs. We go into detail
> on how to contribute code to the kernel, and how to be a subsystem
> maintainer. I can't find any docs directed towards the thousands
> of small scale maintainers, like folks maintaining a single driver
> or a single network protocol.
>
> Document our expectations and best practices. I'm hoping this doc
> will be particularly useful to set expectations with HW vendors.
>
> Reviewed-by: Andrew Lunn <andrew@xxxxxxx>
> Reviewed-by: Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> Reviewed-by: Krzysztof Kozlowski <krzk@xxxxxxxxxx>
> Reviewed-by: Mark Brown <broonie@xxxxxxxxxx>
> Reviewed-by: Leon Romanovsky <leonro@xxxxxxxxxx>
> Signed-off-by: Jakub Kicinski <kuba@xxxxxxxxxx>
> ---
> v3:
>  - clarify that mailings list in addition to humans is fine (Mark)
>  - reword the "review from one maintainer is enough" (Benjamin)
>  - grammar fixes (Benjamin, Shannon)
>  - typos (Andrew, Shannon)
> v2: https://lore.kernel.org/all/20230718155814.1674087-1-kuba@xxxxxxxxxx/
>  - use Thorsten's wording for bug fixing requirements
>  - put more words into the review/response timeline expectations
> v1: https://lore.kernel.org/all/20230713223432.1501133-1-kuba@xxxxxxxxxx/

It sure seems to me that the time has come to apply this before I need a
bigger disk to hold all the Reviewed-by tags ... :)  So I have done so,
thanks.

jon