From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([2001:4830:134:3::10]:48139) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1gNg85-0001sV-T2 for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Fri, 16 Nov 2018 10:33:59 -0500 Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1gNg82-0007TI-Ka for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Fri, 16 Nov 2018 10:33:57 -0500 Received: from mx1.redhat.com ([209.132.183.28]:42058) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtps (TLS1.0:DHE_RSA_AES_256_CBC_SHA1:32) (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1gNg82-0007T6-EK for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Fri, 16 Nov 2018 10:33:54 -0500 Date: Fri, 16 Nov 2018 16:33:50 +0100 From: Cornelia Huck Message-ID: <20181116163350.40fcd163.cohuck@redhat.com> In-Reply-To: <20654e1b-38a0-7f70-df97-7ccd5bf17197@redhat.com> References: <20181026105711.29605-1-cohuck@redhat.com> <20181115172032.53945f5e.cohuck@redhat.com> <1c020087-acd7-302a-d5be-dcdbf7b7084d@redhat.com> <20181116161400.1e3c2669.cohuck@redhat.com> <20654e1b-38a0-7f70-df97-7ccd5bf17197@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 , Peter Maydell Cc: qemu-devel@nongnu.org On Fri, 16 Nov 2018 09:23:27 -0600 Eric Blake wrote: > On 11/16/18 9:14 AM, Cornelia Huck wrote: > >>>> +++ 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.) > > Okay. There's also the counter argument that too much text makes it > something that no one will want to spend time reading, so leaving things > concise is desirable. We could also write up a more verbose "patch handling and maintainership guide" or so; but I'd prefer short comments in MAINTAINERS covering the basics only. > > >> 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? > > Yes, works for me. We can always add more patches later if desired. OK, great! Peter, would you consider picking up this one for 3.1? At the very least, it has a R-b from Markus already :)