Re: [PATCH 6/6] MAINTAINERS: maintain parport

[Sudip Mukherjee <sudipm.mukherjee-Re5JQEeQqe8AvxtiuMwx3w@public.gmane.org>]

On Wed, May 20, 2015 at 10:36:04PM +0200, Richard Weinberger wrote:
> Am 20.05.2015 um 18:33 schrieb One Thousand Gnomes:
> > On Wed, 20 May 2015 17:46:44 +0200
> > Richard Weinberger <richard.weinberger-Re5JQEeQqe8AvxtiuMwx3w@public.gmane.org> wrote:
> > 
> >> On Wed, May 20, 2015 at 5:27 PM, Sudip Mukherjee
> >> <sudipm.mukherjee-Re5JQEeQqe8AvxtiuMwx3w@public.gmane.org> wrote:
> >>> Lets give the parport subsystem a proper name and start
> >>> maintaining the files.
> >>
> >> Excuse me, but usually someone takes over the maintainer role after
> >> proving that he
> >> cares for a sub system for a certain period of time.
> >> Or did I miss something?
> > 
> > It currently (and for some time) has had no maintainer so having a
> > maintainer is IMHO definitely an improvement in things.
> 
> Having a maintainer is good.
> All I wanted to point out was that it is IMHO uncommon to claim maintainership
> before being the main contributor or the de facto maintainer of a
> subsystem.
> 
> This "rule" prevents us from "Mommy!!! Look, I'm a maintainer!!!1" patches. ;-)

I already have my name in the MAINTAINERS file, so that is not a cookie
to cry for.
Personnaly I will prefer Joe Perches or Dan Carpenter to be the maintainer.
They have reviewed many of my patches since I started contributing here and
I have learnt and still learning many things from them.
if this patch is a debatable topic, then lets drop it. I have written these
changes, and will write the next changes also, it doesnot matter if my name
is there in the MAINTAINERS or not.
The main reason I gave this patch is just because if any problem
(read as regression) arises due to these changes then those problem mails
would have directly come to my inbox.

regards
sudip

> 
> Thanks,
> //richard