On Thu, Jun 16, 2022, Paolo Bonzini wrote: > On 6/15/22 20:52, Sean Christopherson wrote: > > I completely agree on needing better transparency for the lifecycle of patches > > going through the KVM tree. First and foremost, there need to be formal, documented > > rules for the "official" kvm/* branches, e.g. everything in kvm/queue passes ABC > > tests, everything in kvm/next also passes XYZ tests. That would also be a good > > place to document expectations, how things works, etc... > > Agreed. I think this is a more general problem with Linux development and I > will propose this for maintainer summit. I believe the documentation side of things is an acknowledged gap, people just need to actually write the documentation, e.g. Boris and Thomas documented the tip-tree under Documentation/process/maintainer-tip.rst and stubbed in maintainer-handbooks.rst. As for patch lifecycle, I would love to have something like tip-bot (can we just steal whatever scripts they use?) that explicitly calls out the branch, commit, committer, date, etc... IMO that'd pair nicely with adding kvm/pending, as the bot/script could provide updates when a patch is first added to kvm/pending, then again when it got moved to kvm/queue or dropped because it was broken, etc...
