[RFC] MAINTAINERS: direct process doc changes to a dedicated ML

[RFC] MAINTAINERS: direct process doc changes to a dedicated ML

[Jakub Kicinski]

It's hard to keep track of changes to the process docs.
Subsystem maintainers should probably know what's going on,
to ensure reasonably uniform developer experience across
trees.

We also need a place where process discussions can be held
(i.e. designated mailing list which can be CCed on naturally
arising discussions). I'm using workflows@ in this RFC,
but a new list may be better.

No change to the patch flow intended.

Signed-off-by: Jakub Kicinski <kuba@kernel.org>
---
I've been pondering the lack of cross-maintainer communication
as the kernel grows, and I hope this could help bring us together
a little. Plus twice over the last 2 weeks someone popped up on
netdev with what I personally considered incorrect interpretation
of the process docs, so it'd be nice to CC a list on my replies
so I can be corrected, in case I'm wrong.

Opinions more than welcome!
---
 MAINTAINERS | 6 ++++++
 1 file changed, 6 insertions(+)

diff --git a/MAINTAINERS b/MAINTAINERS
index 1c78e61a3387..58239fbc7007 100644
--- a/MAINTAINERS
+++ b/MAINTAINERS
@@ -6223,6 +6223,12 @@ X:	Documentation/power/
 X:	Documentation/spi/
 X:	Documentation/userspace-api/media/
 
+DOCUMENTATION PROCESS
+M:	Jonathan Corbet <corbet@lwn.net>
+S:	Maintained
+F:	Documentation/process/
+L:	workflows@vger.kernel.org
+
 DOCUMENTATION REPORTING ISSUES
 M:	Thorsten Leemhuis <linux@leemhuis.info>
 L:	linux-doc@vger.kernel.org
-- 
2.40.1

Re: [RFC] MAINTAINERS: direct process doc changes to a dedicated ML

[Kees Cook]

On Wed, May 10, 2023 at 07:02:04PM -0700, Jakub Kicinski wrote:
> It's hard to keep track of changes to the process docs.
> Subsystem maintainers should probably know what's going on,
> to ensure reasonably uniform developer experience across
> trees.
> 
> We also need a place where process discussions can be held
> (i.e. designated mailing list which can be CCed on naturally
> arising discussions). I'm using workflows@ in this RFC,
> but a new list may be better.
> 
> No change to the patch flow intended.
> 
> Signed-off-by: Jakub Kicinski <kuba@kernel.org>
> ---
> I've been pondering the lack of cross-maintainer communication
> as the kernel grows, and I hope this could help bring us together
> a little. Plus twice over the last 2 weeks someone popped up on
> netdev with what I personally considered incorrect interpretation
> of the process docs, so it'd be nice to CC a list on my replies
> so I can be corrected, in case I'm wrong.

I like this as a place to start. I wonder if there are people that
should be included in some discussions that aren't already subscribed to
the workflows list?

But, FWIW,

Reviewed-by: Kees Cook <keescook@chromium.org>

-Kees

> 
> Opinions more than welcome!
> ---
>  MAINTAINERS | 6 ++++++
>  1 file changed, 6 insertions(+)
> 
> diff --git a/MAINTAINERS b/MAINTAINERS
> index 1c78e61a3387..58239fbc7007 100644
> --- a/MAINTAINERS
> +++ b/MAINTAINERS
> @@ -6223,6 +6223,12 @@ X:	Documentation/power/
>  X:	Documentation/spi/
>  X:	Documentation/userspace-api/media/
>  
> +DOCUMENTATION PROCESS
> +M:	Jonathan Corbet <corbet@lwn.net>
> +S:	Maintained
> +F:	Documentation/process/
> +L:	workflows@vger.kernel.org
> +
>  DOCUMENTATION REPORTING ISSUES
>  M:	Thorsten Leemhuis <linux@leemhuis.info>
>  L:	linux-doc@vger.kernel.org
> -- 
> 2.40.1
> 

-- 
Kees Cook

Re: [RFC] MAINTAINERS: direct process doc changes to a dedicated ML

[Jonathan Corbet]

Jakub Kicinski <kuba@kernel.org> writes:

> It's hard to keep track of changes to the process docs.
> Subsystem maintainers should probably know what's going on,
> to ensure reasonably uniform developer experience across
> trees.
>
> We also need a place where process discussions can be held
> (i.e. designated mailing list which can be CCed on naturally
> arising discussions). I'm using workflows@ in this RFC,
> but a new list may be better.
>
> No change to the patch flow intended.
>
> Signed-off-by: Jakub Kicinski <kuba@kernel.org>
> ---
> I've been pondering the lack of cross-maintainer communication
> as the kernel grows, and I hope this could help bring us together
> a little. Plus twice over the last 2 weeks someone popped up on
> netdev with what I personally considered incorrect interpretation
> of the process docs, so it'd be nice to CC a list on my replies
> so I can be corrected, in case I'm wrong.
>
> Opinions more than welcome!
> ---
>  MAINTAINERS | 6 ++++++
>  1 file changed, 6 insertions(+)
>
> diff --git a/MAINTAINERS b/MAINTAINERS
> index 1c78e61a3387..58239fbc7007 100644
> --- a/MAINTAINERS
> +++ b/MAINTAINERS
> @@ -6223,6 +6223,12 @@ X:	Documentation/power/
>  X:	Documentation/spi/
>  X:	Documentation/userspace-api/media/
>  
> +DOCUMENTATION PROCESS
> +M:	Jonathan Corbet <corbet@lwn.net>
> +S:	Maintained
> +F:	Documentation/process/
> +L:	workflows@vger.kernel.org
> +

Applied, thanks.

jon