Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 2620:137:e000::1:20 as permitted sender) client-ip=2620:137:e000::1:20;
Date:   Thu, 20 Jul 2023 14:37:46 -0700
From:   Jakub Kicinski <kuba@kernel.org>
To:     Conor Dooley <conor@kernel.org>
Cc:     corbet@lwn.net, Andrew Lunn <andrew@lunn.ch>,
        Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@linuxfoundation.org>,
        Krzysztof Kozlowski <krzk@kernel.org>,
        Mark Brown <broonie@kernel.org>,
        Leon Romanovsky <leonro@nvidia.com>, workflows@vger.kernel.org,
        linux-doc@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org,
        netdev@vger.kernel.org, linux@leemhuis.info, kvalo@kernel.org,
        benjamin.poirier@gmail.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH docs v3] docs: maintainer: document expectations of
 small time maintainers
Message-ID: <20230720143746.1adb159a@kernel.org>
In-Reply-To: <20230720-proxy-smile-f1b882906ded@spud>
References: <20230719183225.1827100-1-kuba@kernel.org>
        <20230720-proxy-smile-f1b882906ded@spud>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Precedence: bulk

On Thu, 20 Jul 2023 16:15:26 +0100 Conor Dooley wrote:
> ..I noticed that none of these sections address actually testing the
> code they're responsible for on a (semi-)regular basis. Sure, that comes
> as part of reviewing the patches for their code, but changes to other
> subsystems that a driver/feature maintainer probably would not have been
> CCed on may cause problems for the code they maintain.
> If we are adding a doc about best-practice for maintainers, I think we
> should be encouraging people to test regularly.

I think our testing story is too shaky to make that a requirement.
Differently put - I was never able to get good upstream testing running
when I worked for a vendor myself so I wouldn't know how to draw 
the lines.