On Wed, 28 Oct 2015, Wolfram Sang wrote:
> > Some top level directories contain other subsystems.
> >
> > A maintainer of something like arch/arm doesn't generally
> > want to be the maintainer of arch/arm/mach-
> >
> > You _want_ a wider number of reviewers for patches to any
> > of those unmai
On Wed, 2015-10-28 at 01:05 +0100, Wolfram Sang wrote:
> > Some top level directories contain other subsystems.
> >
> > A maintainer of something like arch/arm doesn't generally
> > want to be the maintainer of arch/arm/mach-
> >
> > You _want_ a wider number of reviewers for patches to any
> > o
> Some top level directories contain other subsystems.
>
> A maintainer of something like arch/arm doesn't generally
> want to be the maintainer of arch/arm/mach-
>
> You _want_ a wider number of reviewers for patches to any
> of those unmaintained subsystems.
I agree.
+F: drivers/i2c/*/
m
On Wed, 2015-10-28 at 00:25 +0100, Wolfram Sang wrote:
> > Another option would be to add another pattern to the
> > I2C section that matches all subdirectories of drivers/i2c/:
> > ---
> > MAINTAINERS | 1 +
> > 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+)
> >
> > diff --git a/MAINTAINERS b/MAINTAINERS
> > in
> Another option would be to add another pattern to the
> I2C section that matches all subdirectories of drivers/i2c/:
> ---
> MAINTAINERS | 1 +
> 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+)
>
> diff --git a/MAINTAINERS b/MAINTAINERS
> index fb7d2e4..c670e1f 100644
> --- a/MAINTAINERS
> +++ b/MAINTAINERS
>
Hello,
On 10/28/2015 03:09 AM, Lee Jones wrote:
> On Tue, 27 Oct 2015, Joe Perches wrote:
>
>> On Tue, 2015-10-27 at 08:21 +, Lee Jones wrote:
>>> On Mon, 26 Oct 2015, j...@perches.com wrote:
On 2015-10-26 19:47, Theodore Ts'o wrote:
> What if we have a git_fallback "auto" mode which
On Tue, 2015-10-27 at 10:49 -0700, Joe Perches wrote:
> On Tue, 2015-10-27 at 11:29 +0100, Wolfram Sang wrote:
> > > act as reviewers, they should have a mention in MAINTAINERS for
> > > get_maintiner.pl to pull information from:
> > >
> > > R: Designated reviewer: FullName
> > >These reviewe
On Tue, 27 Oct 2015, Joe Perches wrote:
> On Tue, 2015-10-27 at 08:21 +, Lee Jones wrote:
> > On Mon, 26 Oct 2015, j...@perches.com wrote:
> > > On 2015-10-26 19:47, Theodore Ts'o wrote:
> > > >What if we have a git_fallback "auto" mode which only falls back to
> > > >using git if there is no
On Tue, 2015-10-27 at 08:21 +, Lee Jones wrote:
> On Mon, 26 Oct 2015, j...@perches.com wrote:
> > On 2015-10-26 19:47, Theodore Ts'o wrote:
> > >What if we have a git_fallback "auto" mode which only falls back to
> > >using git if there is no entry in the MAINTAINERS file? That might
> > >add
On Tue, 2015-10-27 at 11:29 +0100, Wolfram Sang wrote:
> > act as reviewers, they should have a mention in MAINTAINERS for
> > get_maintiner.pl to pull information from:
> >
> > R: Designated reviewer: FullName
> >These reviewers should be CCed on patches.
>
> I think this should do.
>
> In
> act as reviewers, they should have a mention in MAINTAINERS for
> get_maintiner.pl to pull information from:
>
> R: Designated reviewer: FullName
>These reviewers should be CCed on patches.
I think this should do.
Interested parties should start by scanning the mailing list :)
signatur
On Tue, 27 Oct 2015, Wolfram Sang wrote:
> > Anyone south of Wolfram and north of the I2C ML is unlikely to care.
>
> Actually, driver maintainers should care about their portion of it.
> Which leads me to the conclusion that driver maintainer entries in
> MAINTAINERS should have the relevant Kcon
> Anyone south of Wolfram and north of the I2C ML is unlikely to care.
Actually, driver maintainers should care about their portion of it.
Which leads me to the conclusion that driver maintainer entries in
MAINTAINERS should have the relevant Kconfig symbol as a keyword match,
probably.
signat
On Mon, 26 Oct 2015, j...@perches.com wrote:
> On 2015-10-26 19:47, Theodore Ts'o wrote:
> >What if we have a git_fallback "auto" mode which only falls back to
> >using git if there is no entry in the MAINTAINERS file? That might
> >address the concern which Laura raised, without blocking this
> >
On 10/26/15 9:57 PM, j...@perches.com wrote:
On 2015-10-26 19:47, Theodore Ts'o wrote:
What if we have a git_fallback "auto" mode which only falls back to
using git if there is no entry in the MAINTAINERS file? That might
address the concern which Laura raised, without blocking this
change unti
On 2015-10-26 19:47, Theodore Ts'o wrote:
What if we have a git_fallback "auto" mode which only falls back to
using git if there is no entry in the MAINTAINERS file? That might
address the concern which Laura raised, without blocking this
change until the MAINTAINERS file is fully populated.
T
What if we have a git_fallback "auto" mode which only falls back to
using git if there is no entry in the MAINTAINERS file? That might
address the concern which Laura raised, without blocking this
change until the MAINTAINERS file is fully populated.
Cheers,
Hello Laura,
Thanks a lot for your feedback.
On 10/27/2015 08:00 AM, Laura Abbott wrote:
> On 10/26/2015 03:11 PM, Javier Martinez Canillas wrote:
>> The get_maintainer.pl script could be used to get a list of people that
>> has to be in the copy list when posting patches for a given file but it
On 10/26/2015 03:11 PM, Javier Martinez Canillas wrote:
The get_maintainer.pl script could be used to get a list of people that
has to be in the copy list when posting patches for a given file but it
defaults to git fallback so the list returned isn't really relevant and
submitters are posting pa
The get_maintainer.pl script could be used to get a list of people that
has to be in the copy list when posting patches for a given file but it
defaults to git fallback so the list returned isn't really relevant and
submitters are posting patches to random developers that just happened
to touch tha
20 matches
Mail list logo
