[PATCH v3 3/3] net/gve: add maintainers for GVE

[Ferruh Yigit]

On 3/28/2023 11:00 AM, Guo, Junfeng wrote:
> + Rushil Gupta <rushilg at google.com>
> 
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: Guo, Junfeng <junfeng.guo at intel.com>
>> Sent: Tuesday, March 28, 2023 17:45
>> To: Zhang, Qi Z <qi.z.zhang at intel.com>; Wu, Jingjing
>> <jingjing.wu at intel.com>; ferruh.yigit at amd.com; Xing, Beilei
>> <beilei.xing at intel.com>
>> Cc: dev at dpdk.org; Guo, Junfeng <junfeng.guo at intel.com>
>> Subject: [PATCH v3 3/3] net/gve: add maintainers for GVE
>>
>> Add maintainers from Google for GVE.
>>
>> Signed-off-by: Junfeng Guo <junfeng.guo at intel.com>
>> ---
>>  MAINTAINERS | 3 +++
>>  1 file changed, 3 insertions(+)
>>
>> diff --git a/MAINTAINERS b/MAINTAINERS
>> index 1a33ad8592..988c7aecfa 100644
>> --- a/MAINTAINERS
>> +++ b/MAINTAINERS
>> @@ -714,6 +714,9 @@ F: doc/guides/nics/features/enic.ini
>>
>>  Google Virtual Ethernet
>>  M: Junfeng Guo <junfeng.guo at intel.com>
>> +M: Jeroen de Borst <jeroendb at google.com>
>> +M: Rushil Gupta <rushilg at google.com>
>> +M: Joshua Washington <joshwash at google.com>
>>  F: drivers/net/gve/
>>  F: doc/guides/nics/gve.rst
>>  F: doc/guides/nics/features/gve.ini


New maintainers were not part of the upstreaming process, so we don't
know much about the engagement and commitment level of them.

However, as far as I understand they are the base code owners, which
means we can trust their technical expertise that is why good to have
them on board.


Primarily for due diligence, would it be OK to get explicit Ack from the
new maintainers, to confirm they are aware of and agree to the
responsibilities they are accepting?