[dpdk-dev] [PATCH] maintainers: New Reviewer entry type added to MAINTAINERS

Tom Rix trix at redhat.com
Fri Oct 2 18:35:14 CEST 2020


On 10/2/20 8:41 AM, Thomas Monjalon wrote:
> 02/10/2020 16:59, Tom Rix:
>> On 10/1/20 2:54 PM, Thomas Monjalon wrote:
>>> 01/10/2020 23:22, Chautru, Nicolas:
>>>> From: trix at redhat.com <trix at redhat.com>
>>>>> From: Tom Rix <trix at redhat.com>
>>>>>
>>>>> Copied from the Linux kernel MAINTAINERS file.
>>>>> A Reviewer is designated person who wishes to review changes in areas of
>>>>> interest.
>>>>>
>>>>> Added self as Reviewer for baseband.
>>>>>
>>>>> I am a Linux kernel Reviewer for the fpga n3000/vista creek which has
>>>>> several bitstream based baseband devices.  So I want to help out here as
>>>>> well.
>>>>>
>>>>> Signed-off-by: Tom Rix <trix at redhat.com>
>>>> Thanks for the help. 
>>>> Note that they are a few other BBDEV patches in flight for 20.11 on top of the acc100 PMD that you may want to be aware of. 
>>>> https://patches.dpdk.org/project/dpdk/list/?series=&submitter=chautru&state=&q=&archive=&delegate=
>>>>
>>>> Acked-by: Nicolas Chautru <nicolas.chautru at intel.com>
>>> [...]
>>>>>  Baseband API - EXPERIMENTAL
>>>>>  M: Nicolas Chautru <nicolas.chautru at intel.com>
>>>>> +R: Tom Rix <trix at redhat.com>
>>> I don't understand the need of differenciating maintainer and reviewer.
>>> If you are trusted enough, why not just being co-maintainer?
>>>
>> I want to help out with the reviews, the reviewer type makes clear this level of commitment.
>>
>> Maintainer is the next, higher level of commitment.
>>
>>
>> Trust wise, this would allow the maintainer verify the reviewer does have the bandwidth to be responsive
>>
>> and effective before committing to sharing responsibility.
> Sorry I fail to understand.
> My understanding is that you want to be Cc
> but not committing for responsibility.
> Would it be the same if you create a mail filter on your side?
>
> This model is really not clear to me so I'm reluctant to add
> such new category until I understand the benefit.
>
That's fine, i will change the patch and use the existing process.

Tom



More information about the dev mailing list