>>> On 30.04.18 at 15:29, <lars.ku...@citrix.com> wrote:
>
> On 30/04/2018, 14:23, "Ian Jackson" <ian.jack...@citrix.com> wrote:
>
> Jan Beulich writes ("Re: [PATCH for-4.11 v2 0/2] Add Designated Reviewer
> (R:) to MAINTAINERS (plus a test case)"):
> > On 30.04.18 at 10:21, <lars.ku...@citrix.com> wrote:
> > > On 30/04/2018, 08:57, "Jan Beulich" <jbeul...@suse.com> wrote:
> ...
> > > That is my fault: I got into trouble with git and must have done
> something
> > > wrong. If it helps, I can switch the order and re-send.
> >
> > I don't think that's necessary - whoever ends up committing them can
> easily
> > enough switch them around.
>
> I will do so when all is clear.
>
> > I would commit them right away, if only I was
> > really clear whether we've all settled on this.
>
> I have been following this. I think this is a good idea.
>
> Basically it is a way for someone to declare an interest in an area of
> code, and get copied on changes, without having to grant that person
> any formal decisionmaking authority.
>
> If this is not sufficiently clear, do you think we should document
> this more clearly ? Perhaps we could write:
>
> + R: Designated reviewer: FullName <address@domain>
> + Reviewers should be CCed on patches. However, they do not
> + have a formal governance role, and are listed here
> + simply because of their own request.
>
> or something ?
>
> That is clearer: I copied the text from the Linux maintainers file.
Ah, indeed. So far it wasn't really clear to me whether "designated" implies
further privilege.
> @Jan: let me know whether you want me to re-roll the series with the text
> change.
Since I take Ian's reply as him volunteering to commit both, that would then
really be up to him.
Jan
_______________________________________________
Xen-devel mailing list
Xen-devel@lists.xenproject.org
https://lists.xenproject.org/mailman/listinfo/xen-devel
