[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: [PATCH] MAINTAINERS: Clarify check-in requirements for mixed-author patches
- To: George Dunlap <george.dunlap@xxxxxxxxx>, "xen-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx" <xen-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- From: Andrew Cooper <Andrew.Cooper3@xxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Thu, 8 Dec 2022 12:02:35 +0000
- Accept-language: en-GB, en-US
- Arc-authentication-results: i=1; mx.microsoft.com 1; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=citrix.com; dmarc=pass action=none header.from=citrix.com; dkim=pass header.d=citrix.com; arc=none
- Arc-message-signature: i=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=microsoft.com; s=arcselector9901; h=From:Date:Subject:Message-ID:Content-Type:MIME-Version:X-MS-Exchange-AntiSpam-MessageData-ChunkCount:X-MS-Exchange-AntiSpam-MessageData-0:X-MS-Exchange-AntiSpam-MessageData-1; bh=J9wr1uMF3GfKTEZtbQCvFSyis/7rfWI+8zGoBGgRtnA=; b=lOLPSojeR5zTH4oivrDwNoDKW2ImcoIfS2Adh0y5uP21T0t1i0GaVXtOdcV99Jx92o0067dsLtW7dIQBlQIX1cDFa3hEQIIpLsoTBJceJ4O8enjSamBDWXBL8qIpv5aScCavG9TJRcr5JCxuGxHQ4Tw3I39OLHRkvaCueouzwfE+VBMWnd/h+JGtaF+8H4kqTqB9FKqYTg5hFv1KemWGxl03NNnUY+maQx82XHAgptexQZEjvwAJ4MVO/rIuntUucDYqH/DzALYB1qA0KzoQcFWz3wOnHNnOkJaalL9pgHJ76dJtbEi2TBWmo7SeVFMNuUUBiDLVd7tmfXg38TxIPA==
- Arc-seal: i=1; a=rsa-sha256; s=arcselector9901; d=microsoft.com; cv=none; b=cAUeIqIj6DeDQJ8WcXofBXbaKUaY2qW0N/kEJzfCwJ8bAbUdVTe14qArIZn6221Iy/XdSU1Tf3gTHhEusZPxSnYhpQhT3D/2bDDhGbGMSRnE7hn+bGJ2ufYGQDGmEVwrlH84jkuyo4uuJ8FbXz/1gOAHxG/8CGEiAqtIX96VgEdikST1JRevrimCxBfyj3OVq9tNnEfWJcBEOISYQtf55aFRBJ6LhBvy3XZGcIxzUOj/aK7pHjA11TcrlGmWMsw9li4MZfDRyr1WvM6GvD9sB/Hz5D+RGLDbunOMEnDbBm9Sl4VMJTJOjKTJWPo5mMmRnurstPUg2cRFJ1E60s+TMA==
- Authentication-results: dkim=none (message not signed) header.d=none;dmarc=none action=none header.from=citrix.com;
- Cc: George Dunlap <George.Dunlap@xxxxxxxxxx>, Jan Beulich <jbeulich@xxxxxxxx>, Julien Grall <julien@xxxxxxx>, Stefano Stabellini <sstabellini@xxxxxxxxxx>, Wei Liu <wl@xxxxxxx>
- Delivery-date: Thu, 08 Dec 2022 12:02:57 +0000
- Ironport-data: A9a23:3JRF5KrxUSJrcTmW7hEcI9FRyfBeBmL1ZBIvgKrLsJaIsI4StFCzt garIBmEOKyNZzOget13boyy8R4Hv8OEyoRjTlY6/Co1QXgT9ZuZCYyVIHmrMnLJJKUvbq7FA +Y2MYCccZ9uHhcwgj/3b9ANeFEljfngqoLUUbKCYWYpAFc+E0/NsDo788YhmIlknNOlNA2Ev NL2sqX3NUSsnjV5KQr40YrawP9UlKm06W1wUmAWP6gR5gaEzylNVfrzGInqR5fGatgMdgKFb 76rIIGRpgvx4xorA9W5pbf3GmVirmn6ZFXmZtJ+AsBOszAazsAA+v9T2Mk0MC+7vw6hjdFpo OihgLTrIesf0g8gr8xGO/VQO3kW0aSrY9YrK1Dn2SCY5xWun3cBX5yCpaz5VGEV0r8fPI1Ay RAXAAwLdj3am8fr/IqiSOdQwYMhAtL1ELpK7xmMzRmBZRonabbqZvyToPV+jHI3jM0IGuvCb c0EbzYpdA7HfxBEJlYQDtQ5gfusgX78NTZfrTp5p4JuuzSVkFM3jeiraYSFEjCJbZw9ckKwj 2TK5WnmRDodM8SS02Gt+XOwnO7f2yj8Xer+EZXop6E30QfKlgT/DjUOBVr4oeCFsHX5fNcCN G4L9yEFlYg9oRnDot7VGkfQTGS/lhERXMBfHqs29QeJw7L86AKeG2RCRTlEAPQ2uclzSTE02 1uhm9LyGScpoLCTUWia9LqfsXW1Iyd9BW0IaDIATAAFy8L+u4x1hRXKJv5hDaq0g9vdCTz2h TeQo0AWnK4PhMQG06G6+1HvgD+2oJXNCAkv6W3/QWaN/g5/Iom/aOSVBUPz6P9BKMOTSAmHt X1dwsyGtrlQXdeKiTCHR/gLEPex/fGZPTbAgFlpWZ486zCq/H3ldodViN1jGHpU3g8/UWeBS CfuVcl5vfe/4FPCgXdLXr+M
- Ironport-hdrordr: A9a23:U1RytaHjBIw/KvNRpLqEi8eALOsnbusQ8zAXPiFKKSC9F/byqy nAppkmPHPP4gr5O0tApTn/Asa9qBrnnPZICOIqUYtKMjOJhFeV
- List-id: Xen developer discussion <xen-devel.lists.xenproject.org>
- Thread-index: AQHZCvLCk6L0DZ2CykKxacFzdNbhE65j5AWA
- Thread-topic: [PATCH] MAINTAINERS: Clarify check-in requirements for mixed-author patches
On 08/12/2022 10:49, George Dunlap wrote:
> Concerns were raised about two maintainers from the same company
> colluding to get a patch in from their company; but such maintainers
> could already collude, by working on the patch in secret, and posting
> it publicly with only a single author's SoB, and having the other
> person review it.
I know this was how the concern was voices, but it was fairly bogus even
as stated. "same company" or not has no bearing at all on two
maintainers choosing to collude in secret.
The mitigation to all of this is the fact that being a maintainer starts
from having gained trust / reputation in the community, and comes with
the responsibility to not violate that trust. Furthermore, there are
mechanisms in place to deal with issues around said trust being violated.
> There's also something slightly strange about adding "Reviewed-by" to
> code that you've written; but in the end you're reviewing not only the
> code itself, but the final arrangement of it. There's no need to
> overcomplicate things.
>
> Encode this in MAINTAINERS as follows:
>
> * Refine the wording of requirement #2 in the check-in policy; such
> that *each change* must have approval from someone other than *the
> person who wrote it*.
>
> * Add a paragraph explicitly stating that the multiple-SoB-approval
> system satisfies the requirements, and why.
>
> Signed-off-by: George Dunlap <george.dunlap@xxxxxxxxx>
Acked-by: Andrew Cooper <andrew.cooper3@xxxxxxxxxx>
|
