Virtualization - Nov 2021 - [PATCH 2/2] MAINTAINERS: Mark VMware mailing list entries as private

+Greg, Thomas

Hi Joe,

On 11/8/21 3:37 PM, Joe Perches wrote:
> On Mon, 2021-11-08 at 12:30 -0800, Srivatsa S. Bhat wrote:
>> From: Srivatsa S. Bhat (VMware) <srivatsa at csail.mit.edu>
>>
>> VMware mailing lists in the MAINTAINERS file are private lists meant
>> for VMware-internal review/notification for patches to the respective
>> subsystems. So, in an earlier discussion [1][2], it was recommended to
>> mark them as such. Update all the remaining VMware mailing list
>> references to use that format -- "L: list at address
(private)".
> []
>> diff --git a/MAINTAINERS b/MAINTAINERS
> []
>> @@ -6134,8 +6134,8 @@ T:	git git://anongit.freedesktop.org/drm/drm-misc
>>  F:	drivers/gpu/drm/vboxvideo/
>>  
>>  DRM DRIVER FOR VMWARE VIRTUAL GPU
>> -M:	"VMware Graphics" <linux-graphics-maintainer at
vmware.com>
>>  M:	Zack Rusin <zackr at vmware.com>
>> +L:	linux-graphics-maintainer at vmware.com (private)
> 
> This MAINTAINERS file is for _public_ use, marking something
> non-public isn't useful.
> 
> private makes no sense and likely these L: entries shouldn't exist.
> 
> 
Well, the public can send messages to this list, but membership is
restricted.

In many ways, I believe this is similar to x86 at kernel.org, which is an
email alias that anyone can post to in order to reach the x86
maintainer community for patch review. I see x86 at kernel.org listed as
both L: and M: in the MAINTAINERS file, among different entries.

Although the @vmware list ids refer to VMware-internal mailing lists
as opposed to email aliases, they serve a very similar purpose -- to
inform VMware folks about patches to the relevant subsystems.

Is there a consensus on how such lists should be specified? One
suggestion (from Greg in the email thread referenced above) was to
mark it as private, which is what this patch does. Maybe we can find a
better alternative?

How about specifying such lists using M: (indicating that this address
can be used to reach maintainers), as long as that is not the only M:
entry for a given subsystem (i.e., it includes real people's email id
as well)? I think that would address Greg's primary objection too from
that other thread (related to personal responsibility as maintainers).

Regards,
Srivatsa

On Mon, 2021-11-08 at 16:22 -0800, Srivatsa S. Bhat
wrote:
> +Greg, Thomas
> 
> Hi Joe,
> 
> On 11/8/21 3:37 PM, Joe Perches wrote:
> > On Mon, 2021-11-08 at 12:30 -0800, Srivatsa S. Bhat wrote:
> > > From: Srivatsa S. Bhat (VMware) <srivatsa at csail.mit.edu>
> > > 
> > > VMware mailing lists in the MAINTAINERS file are private lists
meant
> > > for VMware-internal review/notification for patches to the
respective
> > > subsystems. So, in an earlier discussion [1][2], it was
recommended to
> > > mark them as such. Update all the remaining VMware mailing list
> > > references to use that format -- "L: list at address
(private)".
> > []
> > > diff --git a/MAINTAINERS b/MAINTAINERS
> > []
> > > @@ -6134,8 +6134,8 @@ T:	git
git://anongit.freedesktop.org/drm/drm-misc
> > >  F:	drivers/gpu/drm/vboxvideo/
> > >  
> > >  DRM DRIVER FOR VMWARE VIRTUAL GPU
> > > -M:	"VMware Graphics" <linux-graphics-maintainer at
vmware.com>
> > >  M:	Zack Rusin <zackr at vmware.com>
> > > +L:	linux-graphics-maintainer at vmware.com (private)
> > 
> > This MAINTAINERS file is for _public_ use, marking something
> > non-public isn't useful.
> > 
> > private makes no sense and likely these L: entries shouldn't
exist.
> 
> Well, the public can send messages to this list, but membership is
> restricted.
Ah, new information.
That's not quite what the commit message describes.
 
> In many ways, I believe this is similar to x86 at kernel.org, which is an
> email alias that anyone can post to in order to reach the x86
> maintainer community for patch review. I see x86 at kernel.org listed as
> both L: and M: in the MAINTAINERS file, among different entries.
> 
> Although the @vmware list ids refer to VMware-internal mailing lists
> as opposed to email aliases, they serve a very similar purpose -- to
> inform VMware folks about patches to the relevant subsystems.
> 
> Is there a consensus on how such lists should be specified?
Not so far as I know.
> One
> suggestion (from Greg in the email thread referenced above) was to
> mark it as private, which is what this patch does. Maybe we can find a
> better alternative?
> 
> How about specifying such lists using M: (indicating that this address
> can be used to reach maintainers), as long as that is not the only M:
> entry for a given subsystem (i.e., it includes real people's email id
> as well)? I think that would address Greg's primary objection too from
> that other thread (related to personal responsibility as maintainers).
So it's an exploder not an actual maintainer and it likely isn't
publically archived with any normal list mechanism.

So IMO "private" isn't appropriate.  Neither is "L:"
Perhaps just mark it as what it is as an "exploder".

Or maybe these blocks should be similar to:

M:	Name of Lead Developer <somebody at vmware.com>
M:	VMware <foo> maintainers <linux-<foo>-maintainers at
vmlinux.com>

Maybe something like a comment mechanism should be added to the
MAINTAINERS file.

Maybe #

so this entry could be something like:

M:	VMware <foo> maintainers <linux-<foo>-maintainers at
vmlinux.com> # VMware's ever changing internal maintainers list