MAX78000 machine needs a maintainer

MAX78000 machine needs a maintainer

[Markus Armbruster]

Hi Jackson,

You added the MAX78000FTHR machine in the v10.1 development cycle.
Would you be willing to serve as its maintainer?

See docs/devel/maintainers.rst for what that means.

If you would like me to prepare the patch to the MAINTAINERS file,
please tell me what support status to use: supported, maintained, or odd
fixes.

Re: MAX78000 machine needs a maintainer

[Jackson Donaldson]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 414 bytes --]

Hello,

> You added the MAX78000FTHR machine in the v10.1 development cycle.
> Would you be willing to serve as its maintainer?

I don't think I'm a good choice for a maintainer. I no longer have access
to a physical MAX78000FTHR to verify against, since submitting those
patches I have joined a company with a restrictive IP agreement, and I'm
fairly low on time in which I could contribute.

- Jackson Donaldson

[-- Attachment #2: Type: text/html, Size: 619 bytes --]

Re: MAX78000 machine needs a maintainer

[Markus Armbruster]

Jackson Donaldson <jackson88044@gmail.com> writes:

> Hello,
>
>> You added the MAX78000FTHR machine in the v10.1 development cycle.
>> Would you be willing to serve as its maintainer?
>
> I don't think I'm a good choice for a maintainer. I no longer have access
> to a physical MAX78000FTHR to verify against, since submitting those
> patches I have joined a company with a restrictive IP agreement, and I'm
> fairly low on time in which I could contribute.
>
> - Jackson Donaldson

Thanks for your quick reply!  Would've been nice to have you onboard.

Out of curiosity, what was your motivation to add the machine?

Re: MAX78000 machine needs a maintainer

[Jackson Donaldson]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 171 bytes --]

>  Out of curiosity, what was your motivation to add the machine?

I wrote the implementation for my university team in the 2025 MITRE
embedded capture the flag challenge

[-- Attachment #2: Type: text/html, Size: 314 bytes --]

Re: MAX78000 machine needs a maintainer

[Philippe Mathieu-Daudé]

Hi Jackson,

On 20/12/25 15:51, Jackson Donaldson wrote:
>  > Out of curiosity, what was your motivation to add the machine?
> 
> I wrote the implementation for my university team in the 2025 MITRE 
> embedded capture the flag challenge

My understanding of Markus question is not why you implemented this
machine, but why you decided to contribute it, if you are not going
to maintain it, because then this is more burden for other maintainers.

Re: MAX78000 machine needs a maintainer

[Jackson Donaldson]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 546 bytes --]

> My understanding of Markus question is not why you implemented this
> machine, but why you decided to contribute it, if you are not going
> to maintain it, because then this is more burden for other maintainers.

I decided to contribute it in the hopes that it would be useful to someone
in the future? It did not occur to me that contributing code came with any
kind of implicit promise of maintenance.

If doing so created more of a burden for you and the other maintainers then
I'm sorry about that; I really appreciate all the work you do.

[-- Attachment #2: Type: text/html, Size: 738 bytes --]

Re: MAX78000 machine needs a maintainer

[Markus Armbruster]

Jackson Donaldson <jackson88044@gmail.com> writes:
> Philippe Mathieu-Daudé <philmd@linaro.org> writes:
>> Jackson Donaldson <jackson88044@gmail.com> writes:
>>> Markus Armbruster <armbru@redhat.com> writes:
>>>> Jackson Donaldson <jackson88044@gmail.com> writes:
>>>>
>>>>> Hello,
>>>>>
>>>>>> You added the MAX78000FTHR machine in the v10.1 development cycle.
>>>>>> Would you be willing to serve as its maintainer?
>>>>>
>>>>> I don't think I'm a good choice for a maintainer. I no longer have access
>>>>> to a physical MAX78000FTHR to verify against, since submitting those
>>>>> patches I have joined a company with a restrictive IP agreement, and I'm
>>>>> fairly low on time in which I could contribute.
>>>>>
>>>>> - Jackson Donaldson
>>>>
>>>> Thanks for your quick reply!  Would've been nice to have you onboard.
>>>>
>>>> Out of curiosity, what was your motivation to add the machine?
>>>
>>> I wrote the implementation for my university team in the 2025 MITRE
>>> embedded capture the flag challenge
>>
>> My understanding of Markus question is not why you implemented this
>> machine, but why you decided to contribute it, if you are not going
>> to maintain it, because then this is more burden for other maintainers.
>
> I decided to contribute it in the hopes that it would be useful to someone
> in the future? It did not occur to me that contributing code came with any
> kind of implicit promise of maintenance.

It doesn't.  It can help getting code accepted and kept.

> If doing so created more of a burden for you and the other maintainers then
> I'm sorry about that; I really appreciate all the work you do.

You didn't do anything wrong, Jackson!

In the long run, the cost of maintaining code commonly dwarfs the cost
of creating it.

That said, QEMU welcomes contributions, even if the author's goal is
just to learn or to have fun.  Learning and having fun matters!  It's up
to QEMU maintainers to reject patches that are likely to be more of a
burden than a benefit to QEMU.

Peter Maydell accepted yours in his role as ARM general architecture
maintainer.  If ARM maintainers come to the conclusion that an orphaned
MAX78000FTHR isn't worth keeping, they can deprecate and eventually
delete it.  I'm not going to interfere there :)