[Open-FCoE] RFC and patchwork process clarification

Robert Love robert.w.love at intel.com
Wed Apr 15 22:07:46 UTC 2009


On Wed, 2009-04-15 at 14:20 -0700, Love, Robert W wrote:
> Regarding the process discussion we had durring the stand-up. I think that we need to evaluate which changes require a RFC on a case-by-case basis. Some patches don't make sense as an RFC, for example compliation warnings, typos or formatting fix-ups. This is becuase these are trivial changes and requesting comments for a typo is pretty silly. Also, I don't know that any of the things we intend to go in <open-fcoe>/debug/ need to be validated.
> 
> That being said, functionality changes, features and non-trivial bug fixes (most of them) should follow the process-
> 
> discussion on devel at open-fcoe.org<mailto:devel at open-fcoe.org> and internally
> RFC to devel at open-fcoe.org<mailto:devel at open-fcoe.org>
> comments and replies
> patch is finalized
> mailed to fcoe-patches
> john tests and gives aproval
> patch mailed without RFC to devel at open-fcoe.org<mailto:devel at open-fcoe.org>
> Rob pulls patches into repos, tests and mails to linux-scsi (when appropriate)
> 
> Our goal is to put out the highest quality patches possible without overloading validation with trivial stuff.
> 
This was an internal mail that I accidentally sent externally. It
basically describes our patch development process and has nothing to do
with this list or the open-fcoe.org/patchwork site. Sorry for the
confusion.





More information about the devel mailing list