Messages in this thread | | | Date | Mon, 2 Jun 2014 11:56:35 -0700 | From | josh@joshtrip ... | Subject | Re: [PATCH RFC 1/2] MAINTAINERS: Add "R:" designated-reviewers tag |
| |
On Mon, Jun 02, 2014 at 11:16:58AM -0700, Paul E. McKenney wrote: > On Mon, Jun 02, 2014 at 10:59:28AM -0700, Joe Perches wrote: > > On Mon, 2014-06-02 at 10:48 -0700, josh@joshtriplett.org wrote: > > > On Mon, Jun 02, 2014 at 10:22:58AM -0700, Joe Perches wrote: > > > > On Mon, 2014-06-02 at 10:00 -0700, Paul E. McKenney wrote: > > > > > A ksummit-discuss email thread looked at the difficulty recruiting > > > > > and retaining reviewers. > > > > > > > > [] > > > > > > > > > Paul Walmsley also noted the need for patch > > > > > submitters to know who the key reviewers are and suggested adding an > > > > > "R:" tag to the MAINTAINERS file to record this information on a > > > > > per-subsystem basis. > > > > > > > > I'm not sure of the value of this. > > > > > > > > Why not just mark the actual reviewers as maintainers? > > > > > > As discussed in the kernel summit discussion, being a regular patch > > > reviewer isn't the same thing as being *the* maintainer. > > > > I think it's not particularly important or valuable > > here to make that distinction. > > > > What real difference does it make? > > In the particular case of Josh, none, at least from my viewpoint. He of > course might or might not want to take on additional maintainership > responsibility at this particular point in time, in which case, I would > be more than happy to have him as a designated maintainer.
For the record, I'd be happy to be listed as a co-maintainer for RCU. :)
- Josh Triplett
| |