[PATCH] MAINTAINERS: Start using the 'reviewer' (R) tag

[lee.jones@linaro.org (Lee Jones)]

On Wed, 28 Oct 2015, Lee Jones wrote:

> On Wed, 28 Oct 2015, Javier Martinez Canillas wrote:
> 
> > Hello Joe,
> > 
> > On Wed, Oct 28, 2015 at 12:06 PM, Joe Perches <joe@perches.com> wrote:
> > > On Wed, 2015-10-28 at 11:53 +0100, Javier Martinez Canillas wrote:
> > >> (Lee) think(s) that the difference between a maintainer and
> > >> a reviewer is if a branch with fixes / new features are kept and pull
> > >> requests sent while I think that the difference is the level of
> > >> involvement someone has with a driver regardless of how patches ends
> > >> in the subsystem tree (picked directly by subsystem maintainers or
> > >> sent through pull requests).
> > >>
> > >> Is the first time I heard your definition but maybe I'm the one that
> > >> is wrong so it would be great to get a consensus on that and get it
> > >> documented somewhere.
> > >
> > > I think Lee is over-analyzing.
> > >
> > > From MAINTAINERS:
> > >         M: Mail patches to: FullName <address@domain>
> > >         R: Designated reviewer: FullName <address@domain>
> > >            These reviewers should be CCed on patches.
> > >         S: Status, one of the following:
> > >            Supported:   Someone is actually paid to look after this.
> > >            Maintained:  Someone actually looks after it.
> > >
> > > "looking after" doesn't mean upstreaming.
> > >
> > 
> > Agreed and upstreaming doesn't mean sending pull request, you can for
> > example upstream the downstream changes for a driver you maintain by
> > posting patches or ack patches others post and let the subsystem
> > maintainer to pick those (even if you are listed as the driver
> > maintainer in MAINTAINERS).
> > 
> > So by following Lee's definition, then most drivers' maintainers
> > should not be called maintainers since keeping a tree with patches for
> > both fixes and new features, sending pull requests, etc is only
> > justified for drivers that have a lot of changes per release. Is not
> > worth it for drivers that are in "maintenance mode" where only bugs
> > are fixed every once in a while or features are seldom added.
> 
> Exactly right.
> 
> Although, it looks like M: doesn't even mean Maintainer.  If it did, I
> would have made these points over and over until death (or until I got
> bored).  However, as M: actually means "Mail patches to", there seems
> to be very little difference between that and "Designated reviewer"
> and makes me wonder why the R: tag was ever even introduced.  I guess
> all of the other guys in the threads below also thought M: meant
> Maintainer, or else they would have just added poor old Josh as a
> "Mail patches to" recipient and been done with it.

Ah, but wait.  get_maintainer.pl *does* assume M means Maintainer
doesn't it?  Which is why this came about.  So if we have a "Mail
patches to" entry, get_maintainer.pl tells the user that this is a
Maintainer, which (given that there are over 1000 unique M: entries
and I know that there are no where near that many actual Maintainers)
means that it's printing out incorrect information most of the time.

So back to my original thought then, what can we do to rectify this
situation and make the information printed more meaningful.  Again,
I'm back to using the R: tag appropriately.

Any (technical, which aren't based on "but I really want to be listed
as a Maintainer") thoughts?

> > > The original threads for this were:
> > >
> > > http://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/ksummit-discuss/2014-May/000830.html
> > > https://lkml.org/lkml/2014/6/2/446

-- 
Lee Jones
Linaro STMicroelectronics Landing Team Lead
Linaro.org ? Open source software for ARM SoCs
Follow Linaro: Facebook | Twitter | Blog