"Michael S. Tsirkin" <m...@redhat.com> writes:
> On Mon, Oct 20, 2014 at 03:04:44PM +0100, Peter Maydell wrote:
>> On 20 October 2014 10:19, Markus Armbruster <arm...@redhat.com> wrote:
>> > Contributors rely on this script to find maintainers to copy. The
>> > script falls back to git when no exact MAINTAINERS pattern matches.
>> > When that happens, recent contributors get copied, which tends not be
>> > particularly useful. Some contributors find it even annoying.
>> >
>> > Flip the default to "don't fall back to git". Use --git-fallback to
>> > ask it to fall back to git.
>> >
>> > Signed-off-by: Markus Armbruster <arm...@redhat.com>
>>
>> Good idea.
>>
>> Reviewed-by: Peter Maydell <peter.mayd...@linaro.org>
>>
>> -- PMM
>
> What do you want to happen in this case?
> Won't this cause even more patches to fall to the floor?
>
> The benefit seems marginal, the risk high.
>
> I would be OK with this if you also go over history
> and assign maintainers to all core files which lack
> maintainers listed in MAINTAINERS.
Define "core files".
I don't think I (or anyone) should *assign* maintainers. We've always
let people volunteer for the maintainer role. Prodding them to
volunteer is fine, but shanghaiing them outright is a different matter.
We do have too may files lacking maintainers. See
Subject: MAINTAINERS leaves too many files uncovered
Date: Mon, 20 Oct 2014 11:19:44 +0200
Message-ID: <87mw8rumhb....@blackfin.pond.sub.org>
https://lists.nongnu.org/archive/html/qemu-devel/2014-10/msg01951.html
> I'm yet to see contributors who are annoyed but we
> can always blacklist specific people.
Quite a few have grumbled, both in this thread and elsewhere. Usually,
for every one who grumbles, there are several quietly annoyed.
