[igt-dev] [RFC i-g-t 0/1] Introduce MAINTAINERS file to IGT

[Rodrigo Siqueira Jordao]

On 2022-02-03 7:50 a.m., Melissa Wen wrote:
> On 01/31, Rodrigo Siqueira wrote:
>> Hi,
>>
>> IGT is becoming more generic, and multiple vendors are adopting it. For
>> example, AMD fully upstream all of its internal changes last year, and
>> now we are relying on IGT from the upstream. Additionally, thanks to the
>> ChromeOS project, we have other vendors working on the KMS tests as
>> well. At this point, I believe that we need some mechanism to better
>> contact developers that care about some specific tests or even provide an
>> easy way for other people to find the right stakeholder for dealing with
>> some particular issue.
>>
>> Imho Linux Kernel already has a good solution codified in the
>> MAINTAINERS and get_maintainers files. One of the best things about this
>> approach was adding reviewers and maintainers (and other options) to the
>> specific part of the code and using the get_maintainers tool to extract
>> the right people to be part of the series. With this idea in mind, I
>> created this RFC that introduces the MAINTAINERS file in IGT, and I have
>> already added some entries to this file. My approach was:
>>
>> * Petri and Hiler are the maintainers, and for this reason, their
>>    contact will be displayed for every patch.
>> * I add Mark Yacoub as a reviewer for every KMS test.
>> * I added some AMD folks as reviewers in some specific KMS tests that we
>>    run in our CI.
>> * I added some AMD maintainers to amdgpu tests.
>>
>> If you want to try it in your local repository, you will need the
>> get_maintainers script from the Linux kernel, and you can use this
>> command:
>>
>>   perl /PATH/TO/get_maintainer.pl --no-tree --separator , --nokeywords --nogit --nogit-fallback --norolestats -f <TARGET_TEST>
>>
>> Anyway, this is just an idea that I want to discuss with the community.
>> What do you think about having a MAINTAINERs file? Do you want to add
>> your name as a reviewer to some specific test if you like the idea? Any
>> other comments or ideas?
> 
> I agree with the idea of having a way to find the developers interested
> in reviewing changes for a specific test. Also I think it can diversify
> feedback for generic tests. That said,
> Acked-by: Melissa Wen <mwen at igalia.com>
> 
> I'm not clear if the `Reviewer` role is just to point developers that
> are willing to review patches to a specific set of tests or developers
> that also have commit rights. For example, I don't have commit rights
> here, but I'm interested in reviewing patches for v3d and KMS CRC too.

Hi Melissa,

AFAIK, `reviewer` is just a developer willing to review.

In the new version of this Patch, I will add you as a reviewer for the 
v3d tests and kms crc.

Thanks
Siqueira

>>
>> Cc: Arkadiusz Hiler <arek at hiler.eu>
>> Cc: Petri Latvala <petri.latvala at intel.com>
>> Cc: Mark Yacoub <markyacoub at google.com>
>> Cc: Jessica Zhang <quic_jesszhan at quicinc.com>
>> Cc: Abhinav Kumar <quic_abhinavk at quicinc.com>
>> Cc: Melissa Wen <mwen at igalia.com>
>> Cc: Sean Paul <seanpaul at chromium.org>
>> Cc: Harry Wentland <harry.wentland at amd.com>
>> Cc: Sun Peng Li(Leo) <sunpeng.li at amd.com>
>> Cc: Chao-kai Wang (Stylon) <stylon.wang at amd.com>
>> Cc: Wayne Lin <wayne.lin at amd.com>
>> Cc: Nicholas Choi <nicholas.choi at amd.com>
>> Cc: Martin Peres <martin.peres at mupuf.org>
>> Cc: Aurabindo Pillai <aurabindo.pillai at amd.com>
>> Cc: Bhawanpreet Lakha <bhawanpreet.lakha at amd.com>
>> Cc: Qingqing Zhuo (Lilian) <qingqing.zhuo at amd.com>
>> Cc: Solomon Chiu <solomon.chiu at amd.com>
>>
>> Best Regards,
>> Siqueira
>>
>> Rodrigo Siqueira (1):
>>    MAINTAINERS: Introduce MAINTAINERS file
>>
>>   MAINTAINERS | 203 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++-
>>   1 file changed, 201 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)
>>
>> -- 
>> 2.25.1
>>