On 12/4/24 13:51, Mauro Carvalho Chehab wrote: > Em Wed, 4 Dec 2024 13:11:45 +0100 > Hans Verkuil <hverkuil@xxxxxxxxx> escreveu: > >> On 12/3/24 10:35, Mauro Carvalho Chehab wrote: >>> During the review of the media committer's profile, it was noticed >>> that the responsibility for timely review patches was not clear: >>> such review is expected that all developers listed at MAINTAINERS >>> with the "M:" tag (e.g. "maintainers" on its broad sense). >>> >>> This is orthogonal of being a media committer or not. Such duty >>> is implied at: >>> >>> Documentation/admin-guide/reporting-issues.rst >>> >>> and at the MAINTAINERS header, when it says that even when the >>> status is "odd fixes", the patches will flow in. >>> >>> So, let make it explicit at the maintainer-entry-profile that >>> maintainers need to do timely reviews. >>> >>> Also, while right now our focus is on granting committer rights to >>> maintainers, the media-committer model may evolve in the future to >>> accept other committers that don't have such duties. >>> >>> So, make it clear at the media-committer.rst that the duties >>> related to reviewing patches from others are for the drivers >>> they are maintainers as well. >>> >>> Signed-off-by: Mauro Carvalho Chehab <mchehab+huawei@xxxxxxxxxx> >>> --- >>> Documentation/driver-api/media/maintainer-entry-profile.rst | 5 +++++ >>> Documentation/driver-api/media/media-committer.rst | 6 +++--- >>> 2 files changed, 8 insertions(+), 3 deletions(-) >>> >>> diff --git a/Documentation/driver-api/media/maintainer-entry-profile.rst b/Documentation/driver-api/media/maintainer-entry-profile.rst >>> index fa28059f7b3f..87b71f89b1df 100644 >>> --- a/Documentation/driver-api/media/maintainer-entry-profile.rst >>> +++ b/Documentation/driver-api/media/maintainer-entry-profile.rst >>> @@ -173,6 +173,11 @@ b. Committers' workflow: patches are handled by media committers:: >>> On both workflows, all patches shall be properly reviewed at >>> linux-media@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx (LMML) before being merged at media-committers.git. >>> >>> +Such patches will be reviewed timely by the maintainers and reviewers as >>> +listed in the MAINTAINERS file. The subsystem maintainers will follow one of >>> +the above workflows, e. g. they will either send a pull request or merge >>> +patches directly at the media-committers tree. >>> + >>> When patches are picked by patchwork and when merged at media-committers, >>> CI bots will check for errors and may provide e-mail feedback about >>> patch problems. When this happens, the patch submitter must fix them, or >>> diff --git a/Documentation/driver-api/media/media-committer.rst b/Documentation/driver-api/media/media-committer.rst >>> index 3d0987a8a93b..0bc038a0fdcc 100644 >>> --- a/Documentation/driver-api/media/media-committer.rst >>> +++ b/Documentation/driver-api/media/media-committer.rst >>> @@ -90,9 +90,9 @@ be a part of their maintenance tasks. >>> Due to that, to become a committer or a core committer, a consensus between >>> all subsystem maintainers is required, as they all need to trust a developer >>> well enough to be delegated the responsibility to maintain part of the code >>> -and to properly review patches from third parties, in a timely manner and >>> -keeping the status of the reviewed code at https://patchwork.linuxtv.org >>> -updated. >>> +and to properly review patches from third parties for the drivers that they >>> +maintain in a timely manner and keeping the status of the patches at >>> +https://patchwork.linuxtv.org updated. >>> >>> .. Note:: >>> >> >> Looks OK to me, but I thought this was supposed to be folded into the 3/5 and 4/5 patches? For the record: Reviewed-by: Hans Verkuil <hverkuil@xxxxxxxxx> You can also add that for patches 1 and 2 (I found them in lore.kernel.org). Regards, Hans > > I'll fold it once you and Ricardo gives the same review/Sob as marked on 3/5 and 4/5. > > > Thanks, > Mauro
