From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([140.186.70.92]:49888)
	by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71)
	(envelope-from <Paul_Brook@mentor.com>) id 1R682q-0005uA-4n
	for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Tue, 20 Sep 2011 17:40:01 -0400
Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71)
	(envelope-from <Paul_Brook@mentor.com>) id 1R682o-0004QC-V3
	for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Tue, 20 Sep 2011 17:40:00 -0400
Received: from relay1.mentorg.com ([192.94.38.131]:61258)
	by eggs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71)
	(envelope-from <Paul_Brook@mentor.com>) id 1R682o-0004Q0-Qt
	for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Tue, 20 Sep 2011 17:39:58 -0400
From: Paul Brook <paul@codesourcery.com>
Date: Tue, 20 Sep 2011 22:39:50 +0100
References: <1316531926-31900-1-git-send-email-peter.maydell@linaro.org>
	<4E78B082.8080703@us.ibm.com>
In-Reply-To: <4E78B082.8080703@us.ibm.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: Text/Plain;
  charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Message-Id: <201109202239.50515.paul@codesourcery.com>
Subject: Re: [Qemu-devel] [PATCH] MAINTAINERS: update maintainer for
	target-arm and ARM devboards
List-Id: <qemu-devel.nongnu.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://lists.nongnu.org/mailman/options/qemu-devel>,
	<mailto:qemu-devel-request@nongnu.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://lists.nongnu.org/archive/html/qemu-devel>
List-Post: <mailto:qemu-devel@nongnu.org>
List-Help: <mailto:qemu-devel-request@nongnu.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://lists.nongnu.org/mailman/listinfo/qemu-devel>,
	<mailto:qemu-devel-request@nongnu.org?subject=subscribe>
To: Anthony Liguori <aliguori@us.ibm.com>
Cc: Peter Maydell <peter.maydell@linaro.org>, qemu-devel@nongnu.org, patches@linaro.org

> > Add myself as co-maintainer alongside Paul Brook for the TCG ARM
> > guest implementation (target-arm) and the ARM dev boards (integratorcp,
> > realview, stellaris, versatilepb).
> > 
> > Signed-off-by: Peter Maydell<peter.maydell@linaro.org>
> 
> Acked-by: Anthony Liguori <aliguori@us.ibm.com>
> 
> Paul, speak now or forever hold your peace ;-)

I approve in general principle, and haven't being paying enough attention to 
make a specific technical judgement.

For the record I consider having multiple maintainers to be a good thing.

IMO the role of a maintainer should be to make sure sub-par code is brought up 
up to standard before it is comitted.  Approving patches is easy, rejecting 
the bad patches[1] is where you add value.  Maintainership is more an 
indication that you're competent to review those bits of code than a grant of 
control.

Paul

[1] With constructive criticism on how to fix the problem.