Re: Status of Subsystems

[Enrico Weigelt, metux IT consult]

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@xxxxxxxxx -- +49-151-27565287