From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([2001:4830:134:3::10]:42859) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1gNfov-0001EU-B0 for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Fri, 16 Nov 2018 10:14:10 -0500 Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1gNfos-0005c2-6m for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Fri, 16 Nov 2018 10:14:09 -0500 Received: from mx1.redhat.com ([209.132.183.28]:44252) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtps (TLS1.0:DHE_RSA_AES_256_CBC_SHA1:32) (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1gNfor-0005bC-SE for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Fri, 16 Nov 2018 10:14:06 -0500 Received: from smtp.corp.redhat.com (int-mx05.intmail.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com [10.5.11.15]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by mx1.redhat.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id B4D423097063 for ; Fri, 16 Nov 2018 15:14:03 +0000 (UTC) Date: Fri, 16 Nov 2018 16:14:00 +0100 From: Cornelia Huck Message-ID: <20181116161400.1e3c2669.cohuck@redhat.com> In-Reply-To: <1c020087-acd7-302a-d5be-dcdbf7b7084d@redhat.com> References: <20181026105711.29605-1-cohuck@redhat.com> <20181115172032.53945f5e.cohuck@redhat.com> <1c020087-acd7-302a-d5be-dcdbf7b7084d@redhat.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Subject: Re: [Qemu-devel] [PATCH RFC] MAINTAINERS: clarify some of the tags List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , To: Eric Blake Cc: qemu-devel@nongnu.org On Thu, 15 Nov 2018 10:46:21 -0600 Eric Blake wrote: > On 11/15/18 10:20 AM, Cornelia Huck wrote: > > On Fri, 26 Oct 2018 12:57:11 +0200 > > Cornelia Huck wrote: > > > >> The MAINTAINERS file is a bit sparse on information about what > >> the different designators are. Let's add some more information > >> to give contributors a better idea about what the different > >> roles are. > >> > >> Signed-off-by: Cornelia Huck > >> --- > >> > >> This came out of a discussion about what being a 'reviewer' listed in > >> this file actually means. A reviewer probably should already have a > >> track record of doing helpful reviews before being listed in here. > >> > >> While at it, I also tried to add some more hints for the other entries. > >> This patch is supposed to be a starting point for further discussion. > > > > Ping. Further discussion would be good :) > > Recent threads have mentioned the possibility of potentially adding a > new category P: for the person that submits pull requests, although I'm > not quite sure how that is different from M: as a maintainer Let's wait how that discussion turns out (I'm not quite sure about the semantics, either.) We can document it then. > > >> +++ b/MAINTAINERS > >> @@ -12,9 +12,14 @@ consult qemu-devel and not any specific individual privately. > >> Descriptions of section entries: > >> > >> M: Mail patches to: FullName > >> + Maintainers are looking after a certain area and must be CCed on > >> + patches. They are considered the main contact point. > > Maybe add something along the lines of "However, a maintainer may accept > code that has been reviewed by others without explicitly reviewing it > themselves"? I'm not sure whether that adds vital information. If a maintainer picks a patch that has been reviewed by others, they may or may not do a proper review themselves; but the end result is basically the same (patch makes its way into the tree.) > > >> R: Designated reviewer: FullName > >> These reviewers should be CCed on patches. > >> + Reviewers are familiar with the subject matter and provide feedback > >> + even though they are not maintainers. > >> L: Mailing list that is relevant to this area > >> + These lists should be CCed on patches. > >> W: Web-page with status/info > >> Q: Patchwork web based patch tracking system site > >> T: SCM tree type and location. Type is one of: git, hg, quilt, stgit. > > > > At any rate, I like the idea of adding the additional descriptions for > the categories, even if we still bike-shed on the wording or even the > set of categories to use. What about going with this as a starting point?