[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: [Qemu-devel] [PATCH RFC] MAINTAINERS: clarify some of the tags
From: |
Cornelia Huck |
Subject: |
Re: [Qemu-devel] [PATCH RFC] MAINTAINERS: clarify some of the tags |
Date: |
Fri, 16 Nov 2018 16:14:00 +0100 |
On Thu, 15 Nov 2018 10:46:21 -0600
Eric Blake <address@hidden> wrote:
> On 11/15/18 10:20 AM, Cornelia Huck wrote:
> > On Fri, 26 Oct 2018 12:57:11 +0200
> > Cornelia Huck <address@hidden> wrote:
> >
> >> The MAINTAINERS file is a bit sparse on information about what
> >> the different designators are. Let's add some more information
> >> to give contributors a better idea about what the different
> >> roles are.
> >>
> >> Signed-off-by: Cornelia Huck <address@hidden>
> >> ---
> >>
> >> This came out of a discussion about what being a 'reviewer' listed in
> >> this file actually means. A reviewer probably should already have a
> >> track record of doing helpful reviews before being listed in here.
> >>
> >> While at it, I also tried to add some more hints for the other entries.
> >> This patch is supposed to be a starting point for further discussion.
> >
> > Ping. Further discussion would be good :)
>
> Recent threads have mentioned the possibility of potentially adding a
> new category P: for the person that submits pull requests, although I'm
> not quite sure how that is different from M: as a maintainer
Let's wait how that discussion turns out (I'm not quite sure about the
semantics, either.) We can document it then.
>
> >> +++ 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@hidden>
> >> + 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.)
>
> >> R: Designated reviewer: FullName <address@hidden>
> >> These reviewers should be CCed on patches.
> >> + Reviewers are familiar with the subject matter and provide feedback
> >> + even though they are not maintainers.
> >> L: Mailing list that is relevant to this area
> >> + These lists should be CCed on patches.
> >> W: Web-page with status/info
> >> Q: Patchwork web based patch tracking system site
> >> T: SCM tree type and location. Type is one of: git, hg, quilt, stgit.
> >
>
> 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?