diff options
author | Paul Moore <paul@paul-moore.com> | 2019-07-02 15:42:02 -0400 |
---|---|---|
committer | Paul Moore <paul@paul-moore.com> | 2019-07-02 15:42:02 -0400 |
commit | 4bec773fb401433bbfbbef111a49e1d2acbc4fcf (patch) | |
tree | f091aa07a4b8839a3f814f0defb8359c0a35c115 /doc | |
parent | 5fc22428507ecea00ee9e2215d972777da9a99b6 (diff) | |
download | libseccomp-4bec773fb401433bbfbbef111a49e1d2acbc4fcf.tar.gz |
doc: new process docs and various updates
A number of updates mainly focused on paving the way for multiple
maintainers and making better use of the GitHub vulnerability
reporting tools.
Signed-off-by: Paul Moore <paul@paul-moore.com>
Acked-by: Tom Hromatka <tom.hromatka@oracle.com>
Diffstat (limited to 'doc')
-rw-r--r-- | doc/admin/MAINTAINER_PROCESS.md | 95 |
1 files changed, 95 insertions, 0 deletions
diff --git a/doc/admin/MAINTAINER_PROCESS.md b/doc/admin/MAINTAINER_PROCESS.md new file mode 100644 index 0000000..6ae61ba --- /dev/null +++ b/doc/admin/MAINTAINER_PROCESS.md @@ -0,0 +1,95 @@ +The libseccomp Maintainer Process +=============================================================================== +https://github.com/seccomp/libseccomp + +This document attempts to describe the processes that should be followed by the +various libseccomp maintainers. It is not intended as a hard requirement, but +rather as a guiding document intended to make it easier for multiple +co-maintainers to manage the libseccomp project. + +We recognize this document, like all other parts of the libseccomp project, is +not perfect. If changes need to be made, they should be made following the +guidelines described here. + +### Reviewing and Merging Patches + +In a perfect world each patch would be independently reviewed and ACK'd by each +maintainer, but we recognize that is not likely to be practical for each patch. +Under normal circumstances, each patch should be ACK'd by a simple majority of +maintainers (in the case of an even number of maintainers, N/2+1) before being +merged into the repository. Maintainers should ACK patches using a format +similar to the Linux Kernel, for example: + +``` +Acked-by: John Smith <john.smith@email.org> +``` + +The maintainer which merged the patch into the repository should add their +sign-off after ensuring that it is correct to do so (see the documentation on +submitting patches); if it is not correct for the maintainer to add their +sign-off, it is likely the patch should not be merged. The maintainer should +add their sign-off using the standard format at the end of the patch's +metadata, for example: + +``` +Signed-off-by: Jane Smith <jane.smith@email.org> +``` + +The maintainers are encouraged to communicate with each other for many reasons, +one of which is to let the others when one is going to be unreachable for an +extended period of time. If a patch is being held due to a lack of ACKs and +the other maintainers are not responding after a reasonable period of time (for +example, a delay of over two weeks), as long as there are no outstanding NACKs +the patch can be merged without a simple majority. + +### Managing Sensitive Vulnerability Reports + +The libseccomp vulnerability reporting process is documented in the SECURITY.md +document. + +The maintainers should work together with the reporter to asses the validity +and seriousness of the reported vulnerability. Whenever possible, responsible +reporting and patching practices should be followed, including notification to +the _linux-distros_ and _oss-security_ mailing lists. + +* https://oss-security.openwall.org/wiki/mailing-lists/distros + +### Managing the GitHub Issue Tracker + +We use the GitHub issue tracker to track bugs, feature requests, and sometimes +unanswered questions. The conventions here are intended to help distinguish +between the different uses, and prioritize within those categories. + +Feature requests MUST have a "RFE:" prefix added to the issue name and use the +"enhancement" label. Bug reports MUST a "BUG:" prefix added to the issue name +and use the "bug" label. + +Issues SHOULD be prioritized using the "priority/high", "priority/medium", and +"priority/low" labels. The meaning should hopefully be obvious. + +Issues CAN be additionally labeled with the "pending/info", "pending/review", +and "pending/revision" labels to indicate that additional information is +needed, the issue/patch is pending review, and/or the patch requires changes. + +### Managing the GitHub Release Milestones + +There should be at least two GitHub milestones at any point in time: one for +the next major/minor release (for example, v2.5), and one for the next patch +release (for example, v2.4.2). As issues are entered into the system, they can +be added to the milestones at the discretion of the maintainers. + +### Managing the Public Mailing List + +The mailing list is currently hosted on Google Groups, and while it is possible +to participate in discussions without a Google account, a Google account is +required to moderate/administer the group. Those maintainers who do have a +Google account and wish to be added to the moderators list should be added, but +there is no requirement to do so. + +Despite the term "moderator" the list is currently unmoderated and should +remain the way. + +### New Project Releases + +The libseccomp release process is documented in the RELEASE_PROCESS.md +document. |