On 13-07-16 07:38 PM, Steven Rostedt wrote: > On Tue, 2013-07-16 at 16:12 -0700, Sarah Sharp wrote: > [...] > >> We need to define what behavior we want >> from both maintainers and patch submitters. E.g. "No regressions" and >> "don't break userspace" > > Yes, those do need to be documented. Actually, they are already documented. See "Regressions" section in the file Documentation/development-process/4.Coding Paul. -- > > >> and "no personal attacks". > > I actually disagree with this. What I would say this instead: "try to > keep it technical and focus on the code. If you are upset at someone, > think twice before hitting send. But if you really think this is the > only way to deal with the situation, then that's your call, and you get > to deal with the consequences." > > I don't think changing peoples behavior is going to work. It wont. You > don't want to change who you are, others don't want to change who they > are. Deal with it. But what we can do is just try to educate people on > what policies are needed to be a maintainer and code submitter (there is > documentation already on some of this), and then point it to people. If > people continue to ignore those after being shown, then yes, personal > attacks are then in order. > > >> That needs to be >> written down somewhere, and it isn't. If it's documented somewhere, >> point me to the file in Documentation. Hint: it's not there. > > Well, SubmittingPatches is there, but we should have a MaintainerRules > or something. > >> >> That is the problem. > > We can always use better documentation. > > -- Steve > > > _______________________________________________ > Ksummit-2013-discuss mailing list > Ksummit-2013-discuss@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx > https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/ksummit-2013-discuss > > -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe stable" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html