Paolo Bonzini <pbonz...@redhat.com> writes: > On 04/02/2016 12:41, Andreas Färber wrote: >> You're talking about machine, right? Some time ago I had proposed Marcel >> who initially worked on it, but I'm fine with anyone taking it. > > Yes. > >> For some (but not all) core qdev parts related to the (stalled) QOM >> migration I've been taking care of via qom-next. Last time this came up >> you didn't want anyone to be M: for qdev, so maybe we can use R: so that >> at least people automatically get CC'ed and we avoid this recurring >> discussion? > > I might have changed my mind on that. You definitely should be M: for qdev.
Yes. Would you like co-maintainers for just qdev, for QOM+qdev, or simply add qdev to your QOM portfolio?
