On 16 April 2012 18:42, Anthony Liguori<address@hidden> wrote:
On 04/16/2012 12:17 PM, Peter Maydell wrote:
Here's my stab at it:
Maintained: Someone actually looks after it. The maintainer
will have a git subtree for this area and patches
are expected to go through it. Bug reports will
generally be investigated.
* For something to be marked Maintained, there must be a person on M: and
there must be a git tree for the subsystem.
Do you mean "there must be a git tree" or "there must be a git tree
listed under T: for this area" ? We have I think several subsystems
where things do come in via pullreq for a submaintainer tree but that
tree isn't officially public except in as much as the branch name
for the pullreq is always the same...
I don't particularly object to providing a T: line for
target-arm.next/arm-devs.next, but I'm not sure it's particularly useful,
since we don't have the same tendency the kernel does to having subtrees
which can diverge significantly because of large amounts of change waiting
for a merge window. I wouldn't expect people to base arm patches against
arm-devs.next rather than master, for instance. (Maybe I should??)
Anyway, I think if we have T: lines in MAINTAINERS it should be because
(and we should clearly say that) that is the tree that we expect patches
in that area to apply to.