02/10/2020 16:59, Tom Rix: > > On 10/1/20 2:54 PM, Thomas Monjalon wrote: > > 01/10/2020 23:22, Chautru, Nicolas: > >> From: t...@redhat.com <t...@redhat.com> > >>> From: Tom Rix <t...@redhat.com> > >>> > >>> Copied from the Linux kernel MAINTAINERS file. > >>> A Reviewer is designated person who wishes to review changes in areas of > >>> interest. > >>> > >>> Added self as Reviewer for baseband. > >>> > >>> I am a Linux kernel Reviewer for the fpga n3000/vista creek which has > >>> several bitstream based baseband devices. So I want to help out here as > >>> well. > >>> > >>> Signed-off-by: Tom Rix <t...@redhat.com> > >> Thanks for the help. > >> Note that they are a few other BBDEV patches in flight for 20.11 on top of > >> the acc100 PMD that you may want to be aware of. > >> https://patches.dpdk.org/project/dpdk/list/?series=&submitter=chautru&state=&q=&archive=&delegate= > >> > >> Acked-by: Nicolas Chautru <nicolas.chau...@intel.com> > > [...] > >>> Baseband API - EXPERIMENTAL > >>> M: Nicolas Chautru <nicolas.chau...@intel.com> > >>> +R: Tom Rix <t...@redhat.com> > > I don't understand the need of differenciating maintainer and reviewer. > > If you are trusted enough, why not just being co-maintainer? > > > I want to help out with the reviews, the reviewer type makes clear this level > of commitment. > > Maintainer is the next, higher level of commitment. > > > Trust wise, this would allow the maintainer verify the reviewer does have the > bandwidth to be responsive > > and effective before committing to sharing responsibility.
Sorry I fail to understand. My understanding is that you want to be Cc but not committing for responsibility. Would it be the same if you create a mail filter on your side? This model is really not clear to me so I'm reluctant to add such new category until I understand the benefit.
