Date: Fri, 01 Dec 2000 10:51:31 -0700 From: Warner Losh <imp@village.org> To: Dag-Erling Smorgrav <des@ofug.org> Cc: John Baldwin <jhb@FreeBSD.org>, cvs-committers@FreeBSD.org, cvs-all@FreeBSD.org Subject: Re: cvs commit: src/sys/i386/linux/linprocfs linprocfs_misc.c Message-ID: <200012011751.KAA80961@harmony.village.org> In-Reply-To: Your message of "01 Dec 2000 13:21:24 %2B0100." <xzpbsuwuybf.fsf@flood.ping.uio.no> References: <xzpbsuwuybf.fsf@flood.ping.uio.no> <200012010634.eB16YKD44700@freefall.freebsd.org>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
In message <xzpbsuwuybf.fsf@flood.ping.uio.no> Dag-Erling Smorgrav writes: : John Baldwin <jhb@FreeBSD.org> writes: : > jhb 2000/11/30 22:34:20 PST : > : > Modified files: : > sys/i386/linux/linprocfs linprocfs_misc.c : > Log: : > Protect access to p_stat with sched_lock. : : This code has a maintainer. Lots of code in the tree has a maintainer. Yet the non-maintainers make commits to it all the time. Since you don't state anything other than a simple fact, it is hard to know for sure what your point is. It was my understanding that the rough general consensus was last time this came up that MAINTAINERship isn't an absolute lock unless there was a compelling reason for it to be (eg code from another tree or code that must work on multiple systems). It is an advisory lock that requests people check first as well as requires the maintainer to respond quickly and civilly to those requests. eg: A MAINTAINER MUST be actively maintaining the code. Changes to MAINTAINED code SHOULD go through the maintainer first. For portions of the tree that core has approved SHOULD becomes MUST. MAINTAINERS MUST be responsive and polite to requests about maintained code. MAINTAINER is advisory. It is not a club, but a road sign. Common sense MAY override these rules if the circumstances warrant. There was some agreement that changes to the whole tree may need exceptions ot this rule. Some felt that it was too constraining to get everybody on board. Others felt that common sense would dictate that a broken tree is worse than hurt feelings. Common sense needs to be applied here, but there was no consensus on what that common sense was in general, although many individual cases were easy to call. There was some desire to allow trivial cleanups as an exception, but there was concern that these trivial cleanups might break code that is maintained on multiple systems. Warner To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe cvs-all" in the body of the message
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?200012011751.KAA80961>