path: root/Documentation/development-process/3.Early-stage
diff options
authorJonathan Corbet <corbet@lwn.net>2011-03-25 12:17:53 -0600
committerJonathan Corbet <corbet@lwn.net>2011-03-25 14:30:31 -0600
commit5c050fb96380a87a85aad9084b68fdcd2b84c193 (patch)
treeb1d0bf29716a4e8a0da6d4b9b96bfe9635b58271 /Documentation/development-process/3.Early-stage
parent9cad7962704d617ab1e4ae304baaaa22d727932b (diff)
docs: update the development process document
Here's a set of changes updating Documentation/development-process. I have update kernel releases and relevant statistics, added information for a couple of tools, zapped some trailing white space, and generally tried to make it more closely match the current state of affairs. [Typo fixes from Joe Perches and Nicolas Kaiser incorporated] Signed-off-by: Jonathan Corbet <corbet@lwn.net> Acked-by: Greg KH <greg@kroah.com> Cc: Randy Dunlap <rdunlap@xenotime.net>
Diffstat (limited to 'Documentation/development-process/3.Early-stage')
1 files changed, 24 insertions, 7 deletions
diff --git a/Documentation/development-process/3.Early-stage b/Documentation/development-process/3.Early-stage
index 307a159a70ca..f87ba7b3fbac 100644
--- a/Documentation/development-process/3.Early-stage
+++ b/Documentation/development-process/3.Early-stage
@@ -110,8 +110,8 @@ the kernel community's standards. Some examples include:
- The AppArmor security module made use of internal virtual filesystem
data structures in ways which were considered to be unsafe and
- unreliable. This code has since been significantly reworked, but
- remains outside of the mainline.
+ unreliable. This concern (among others) kept AppArmor out of the
+ mainline for years.
In each of these cases, a great deal of pain and extra work could have been
avoided with some early discussion with the kernel developers.
@@ -138,6 +138,19 @@ patches, and who, if anybody, is attaching Signed-off-by lines to those
patches. Those are the people who will be best placed to help with a new
development project.
+The task of finding the right maintainer is sometimes challenging enough
+that the kernel developers have added a script to ease the process:
+ .../scripts/get_maintainer.pl
+This script will return the current maintainer(s) for a given file or
+directory when given the "-f" option. If passed a patch on the
+command line, it will list the maintainers who should probably receive
+copies of the patch. There are a number of options regulating how hard
+get_maintainer.pl will search for maintainers; please be careful about
+using the more aggressive options as you may end up including developers
+who have no real interest in the code you are modifying.
If all else fails, talking to Andrew Morton can be an effective way to
track down a maintainer for a specific piece of code.
@@ -155,11 +168,15 @@ reaction, but, instead, little or no reaction at all. The sad truth of the
matter is (1) kernel developers tend to be busy, (2) there is no shortage
of people with grand plans and little code (or even prospect of code) to
back them up, and (3) nobody is obligated to review or comment on ideas
-posted by others. If a request-for-comments posting yields little in the
-way of comments, do not assume that it means there is no interest in the
-project. Unfortunately, you also cannot assume that there are no problems
-with your idea. The best thing to do in this situation is to proceed,
-keeping the community informed as you go.
+posted by others. Beyond that, high-level designs often hide problems
+which are only reviewed when somebody actually tries to implement those
+designs; for that reason, kernel developers would rather see the code.
+If a request-for-comments posting yields little in the way of comments, do
+not assume that it means there is no interest in the project.
+Unfortunately, you also cannot assume that there are no problems with your
+idea. The best thing to do in this situation is to proceed, keeping the
+community informed as you go.