I really shouldn't reply to this, because more maintainer duties is
about the last thing I need, but here goes anyway:
Paolo Bonzini <pbonz...@redhat.com> writes:
> On 30/08/2016 17:29, Markus Armbruster wrote:
>> > > > Active subsystems lacking a maintainer include tilegx, qdev, replay.
>> > >
>> > > You, Eduardo, me?
>> >
>> > FWIW I was referring to qdev.
>>
>> Jointly?
>
> A subset not including me would also be fine. But since the git
> fallback still exists, and the code is _obviously_ maintained, I don't
> think there is a particular hurry to add new people to the list.
> Maintainers are most useful when there are a lot of simple patches, not
> when each patch's design must be discussed in the community.
Even then, having someone "own" the discussion is useful: make sure it
happens, and stays on track.
Moreover, not *all* qdev patches need wider discussion. You're doing a
good job picking up such patches to "unmaintained" code. Still, having
less "unmaintained" code can only make that job easier.
Last but not least,
$ scripts/get_maintainer.pl -f hw/core/qdev.c
get_maintainer.pl: No maintainers found, printing recent contributors.
get_maintainer.pl: Do not blindly cc: them on patches! Use common sense.
Markus Armbruster <arm...@redhat.com> (commit_signer:4/12=33%)
David Gibson <da...@gibson.dropbear.id.au> (commit_signer:4/12=33%)
Eric Blake <ebl...@redhat.com> (commit_signer:3/12=25%)
Igor Mammedov <imamm...@redhat.com> (commit_signer:2/12=17%)
"Andreas Färber" <afaer...@suse.de> (commit_signer:2/12=17%)
qemu-devel@nongnu.org (open list:All patches CC here)
must look scary for contributors who don't know that qdev "is
_obviously_ maintained".
