Lines Matching refs:to
6 developers can make is to conclude that their work is now done. In truth,
8 with, possibly, quite a bit of work yet to be done.
13 code. You, as the author of that code, will be expected to work with the
14 kernel community to ensure that your code is up to the kernel's quality
15 standards. A failure to participate in this process is quite likely to
28 value and why you went to the trouble of writing it. But that value
30 like to maintain a kernel with this code in it five or ten years later?
31 Many of the changes you may be asked to make - from coding style tweaks
32 to substantial rewrites - come from the understanding that Linux will
40 impulse to respond in kind. Code review is about the code, not about
43 - Similarly, code reviewers are not trying to promote their employers'
44 agendas at the expense of your own. Kernel developers often expect to
48 trying to create discomfort for their employers' competitors.
50 What all of this comes down to is that, when reviewers send you comments,
51 you need to pay attention to the technical observations that they are
53 from happening. When you get review comments on a patch, take the time to
54 understand what the reviewer is trying to say. If possible, fix the things
55 that the reviewer is asking you to fix. And respond back to the reviewer:
58 Note that you do not have to agree with every change suggested by
60 explain what is really going on. If you have a technical objection to a
61 suggested change, describe it and justify your solution to the problem. If
63 explanation not prove persuasive, though, especially if others start to
64 agree with the reviewer, take some time to think things over again. It can
65 be easy to become blinded by your own solution to a problem to the point
74 One fatal mistake is to ignore review comments in the hope that they will
76 responded to the comments you got the time before, you're likely to find
80 going to remember all the details of the code you posted the last time
81 around. So it is always a good idea to remind reviewers of previously
83 place for this kind of information. Reviewers should not have to search
84 through list archives to familiarize themselves with what was said last
88 What if you've tried to do everything right and things still aren't going
90 but there are times when somebody simply has to make a decision. If you
92 always try appealing to a higher power. As of this writing, that higher
93 power tends to be Andrew Morton. Andrew has a great deal of respect in the
94 kernel development community; he can often unjam a situation which seems to
95 be hopelessly blocked. Appealing to Andrew should not be done lightly,
102 If a patch is considered to be a good thing to add to the kernel, and once
105 subsystem to the next; each maintainer has his or her own way of doing
107 dedicated to patches planned for the next merge window, and another for
110 For patches applying to areas for which there is no obvious subsystem tree
115 Inclusion into a subsystem tree can bring a higher level of visibility to a
118 contents visible to the development community as a whole. At this point,
120 reviewers; these comments need to be answered as in the previous round.
127 developers and, possibly, moving some patches between trees to ensure that
130 only turned up during the merge window and had to be addressed in a hurry.
135 complete (and you have added yourself to the MAINTAINERS file), though, it
141 the patch before. It may be tempting to ignore them, since there is no
143 though; you still need to be responsive to developers who have questions or
154 regressions need to be fixed as soon as possible. If you are unwilling or
155 unable to fix the regression (and nobody else does it for you), your patch
157 negating all of the work you have done to get your patch into the mainline,
158 having a patch pulled as the result of a failure to fix a regression could
159 well make it harder for you to get work merged in the future.
162 bugs to deal with. The stabilization period is your best opportunity to
171 up a version of the kernel containing your patch, etc. Continuing to
172 respond to these reports is a matter of basic pride in your work. If that
176 it with the assumption that you will not be around to maintain it
183 a patch to your code. That is one of the advantages of having your code
185 either forward it on to the subsystem maintainer (be sure to include a
191 possible, tell the author what changes need to be made to make the patch
192 acceptable to you. There is a certain resistance to merging patches which
199 developer posts a different solution to your problem. At that point,
201 here first" is not considered to be a compelling technical argument. If
203 really only one way to respond: be pleased that your problem got solved and