qemu-devel
[Top][All Lists]
Advanced

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: [Qemu-devel] [RFC 00/14] MAINTAINERS cleanups - please read


From: Andreas Färber
Subject: Re: [Qemu-devel] [RFC 00/14] MAINTAINERS cleanups - please read
Date: Mon, 16 Apr 2012 18:03:46 +0200
User-agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:11.0) Gecko/20120312 Thunderbird/11.0

Am 16.04.2012 18:00, schrieb Anthony Liguori:
> On 04/16/2012 09:31 AM, Andreas Färber wrote:
>> Hello,
>>
>> Sparked by conversations with Anthony and the discussion on a recent
>> KVM call,
>> I've started overhauling our MAINTAINERS file.
>>
>> Patches 1-5 fix syntax issues.
>>
>> Patch 6 documents our orphaned stable trees, as requested by Anthony.
>>
>> Patch 7 drops the orphaned and by now completely busted darwin-user
>> emulation.
>>
>> Apparently we have unwritten eligibility criteria for new maintainers
>> in terms
>> of qemu-devel participation and patch handling quality, but no formal
>> mechanism
>> to handle replacing lost maintainers.
>>
>> The current practice has become for Anthony to expect people listed in a
>> MAINTAINERS section with S: Maintained to handle patches in that area
>> themselves
>> and to supply a [PULL] request to get those changes into qemu.git.
>> This has the downside that patches falling into an area, where a
>> maintainer
>> is listed but not responding, simply bitrot on the list.
> 
> I think we ought to aggressively downgrade subsystems if this is really
> a problem.  Unfortunately, it's hard to judge whether this is a problem
> until someone complains about a specific subsystem.
> 
>> Patches 8-11 therefore propose to upgrade some actively maintained
>> sections
>> to Maintained to formalize the Maintained vs. Odd Fixes semantics:
> 
>> Maintained means PULLs from maintainer expected.
> 
> Yes.  More specifically, if something is Maintained, I would expect the
> patch to always come in through that specific tree.
> 
>> Odd Fixes means Reviewed-by/Acked-by or committer's gut feeling is
>> sufficient.
> 
> Yes.  Odd Fixes and below means the patch is "fair game" but that the
> listed M: probably ought to at least be consulted.

The current status descriptions seem to be a copy from Linux. Could you
address Kevin's comment by proposing a change to the descriptions in our
copy?

Andreas

-- 
SUSE LINUX Products GmbH, Maxfeldstr. 5, 90409 Nürnberg, Germany
GF: Jeff Hawn, Jennifer Guild, Felix Imendörffer; HRB 16746 AG Nürnberg



reply via email to

[Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread]