On Fri, 16 Nov 2018 09:23:27 -0600 Eric Blake <ebl...@redhat.com> wrote:
> On 11/16/18 9:14 AM, Cornelia Huck wrote: > >>>> +++ b/MAINTAINERS > >>>> @@ -12,9 +12,14 @@ consult qemu-devel and not any specific individual > >>>> privately. > >>>> Descriptions of section entries: > >>>> > >>>> M: Mail patches to: FullName <address@domain> > >>>> + Maintainers are looking after a certain area and must be > >>>> CCed on > >>>> + patches. They are considered the main contact point. > >> > >> Maybe add something along the lines of "However, a maintainer may accept > >> code that has been reviewed by others without explicitly reviewing it > >> themselves"? > > > > I'm not sure whether that adds vital information. If a maintainer picks > > a patch that has been reviewed by others, they may or may not do a > > proper review themselves; but the end result is basically the same > > (patch makes its way into the tree.) > > Okay. There's also the counter argument that too much text makes it > something that no one will want to spend time reading, so leaving things > concise is desirable. We could also write up a more verbose "patch handling and maintainership guide" or so; but I'd prefer short comments in MAINTAINERS covering the basics only. > > >> At any rate, I like the idea of adding the additional descriptions for > >> the categories, even if we still bike-shed on the wording or even the > >> set of categories to use. > > > > What about going with this as a starting point? > > Yes, works for me. We can always add more patches later if desired. OK, great! Peter, would you consider picking up this one for 3.1? At the very least, it has a R-b from Markus already :)
