From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([208.118.235.92]:50727) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1S7B55-0004az-Sx for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Mon, 12 Mar 2012 15:38:57 -0400 Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1S7B53-0003Se-VV for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Mon, 12 Mar 2012 15:38:55 -0400 Received: from mail-pz0-f45.google.com ([209.85.210.45]:62767) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1S7B53-0003Pb-Os for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Mon, 12 Mar 2012 15:38:53 -0400 Received: by dadp14 with SMTP id p14so6823215dad.4 for ; Mon, 12 Mar 2012 12:38:51 -0700 (PDT) Message-ID: <4F5E50C7.7060606@codemonkey.ws> Date: Mon, 12 Mar 2012 14:38:47 -0500 From: Anthony Liguori MIME-Version: 1.0 References: <4F5E2F77.1060008@codemonkey.ws> <4F5E44E9.7040401@codemonkey.ws> <4F5E48B2.5020708@codemonkey.ws> In-Reply-To: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Subject: Re: [Qemu-devel] We need more reviewers/maintainers!! List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , To: Stefano Stabellini Cc: "qemu-devel@nongnu.org" On 03/12/2012 02:21 PM, Stefano Stabellini wrote: > On Mon, 12 Mar 2012, Anthony Liguori wrote: >>>>> "infrequent write-only contributors". >>>>> >>>>> I certainly do it for the areas I am a maintainer of, and in general we >>>>> try to do it on xen-devel. Overall I think we are mostly succeeding even >>>>> though admittedly the traffic is lower than qemu-devel. >>>>> Maybe we just need more maintainers? >>>> >>>> Yes, we do. But as Paul Brook likes to say, in order to be a maintainer, you >>>> have to be willing to say no, not just apply patches. >>>> >>>> It's not a question of maintainers, it's a question of people providing critical >>>> review of patches. >>> >>> Right, but if one's name is right below a particular subsystem in the >>> MAINTAINERS file, one should be the one in charge of providing a timely >>> review to all the patches that touch that subsystem. >> >> Note that MAINTAINERS lacks an entry for savevm.c. That should imply M: Orphan. >> >>> >>> If you one is a maintainer and one is silently ignoring a patch touching >>> one's subsystem, then one is not doing a good job as a maintainer. >>> Of course if one is a maintainer and rather than giving useful feedback, >>> limits the reply to a statement like "No", is also not doing a very good >>> job. >>> Do we all agree on these basic principles? >> >> It's more complicated than that in a large project. MAINTAINERS has different >> support levels. I think what you're proposing is M: Supported. >> >> M: Odd fixes (which is what I proposed savevm.c as) is less rigorous than that. > > OK, so the actual problem seems to be that not all the source files that > are supposed to be Supported are actually supported. > And of course some key files, like savevm.c are not even Maintained!! > For example if I am not mistaken we are missing an entry for vga/cirrus, > so that would also be Orphan, correct? More likely Odd Fixes. I think most of the things not listed are Odd Fixes which for something like cirrus is fine. I doubt it's ever going to see a big invasive change as the code hasn't changed fundamentally in years. But I agree, migration is an area that we need a proper maintainer for and hopefully this thread will help make that happen. Regards, Anthony Liguroi > > The situation is actually worse than I thought! >