Re: [PATCH docs] docs: maintainer: document expectations of small time maintainers

[Mark Brown <broonie@kernel.org>]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1608 bytes --]

On Fri, Jul 14, 2023 at 11:34:18AM -0700, Jakub Kicinski wrote:
> On Fri, 14 Jul 2023 18:59:08 +0100 Mark Brown wrote:
> > > If we try to fend off anyone who doesn't understand common meaning 
> > > of words the document will be very long and painful to read.  

> > That's true, but "bug" is one of those things where there is a frequent
> > disconnect on definitions, and when coupled with the must respond bit I
> > can see things going wrong.

...

> But we can't expect from the user to know if the problem is stable
> material, or even whether their problem is a bug in the first place.
> Simple example - WiFi cards which don't support AP mode. User may try
> to run an AP, and report it doesn't work. They may not know whether
> it's HW limitation or a bug. The maintainer responding with "it's not
> supported, sorry" does not seem to me to be a high bar.

Sure, there's cases where it's really clear and people ought to reply
but there's other things especially as you get into the automated
reports - for things like the fuzzers with automated reports and
sometimes janky bisection it's a lot more reasonable to just drop them
on the floor.

> Just in case someone thought that maintainers are their tech support.
> Then again, I don't want to completely exclude technical questions which
> aren't straight up crashes because some of those are reasonable, should
> be answered or even result in improving docs or error reporting.

> It's a balancing act :(

Honestly I think a lot of it is the "must" rather than "should", it
comes over as being a bit inflexible.

[-- Attachment #2: signature.asc --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 488 bytes --]