[Mesa-dev] [RFC] add MAINTAINERS and get_maintainer.pl script

[Rob Clark]

On Mon, May 2, 2016 at 2:15 AM, Michel Dänzer <michel at daenzer.net> wrote:
> On 25.04.2016 21:36, Daniel Stone wrote:
>> On 20 April 2016 at 00:32, Rob Clark <robdclark at gmail.com> wrote:
>>> On Tue, Apr 19, 2016 at 7:04 PM, Matt Turner <mattst88 at gmail.com> wrote:
>>>> Let's let people add themselves to the file if they want. No point in
>>>> trying to populate it up front.
>>>
>>> yeah, I expect people to add themselves, and for the MAINTAINERS file
>>> to evolve over time..  if people like the idea I'll send a non-rfc
>>> version of the patch which whatever entries people ask me to add
>>> themselves for over the next week or so.. mostly just to avoid
>>> starting off with a completely empty file.  But wasn't planning to
>>> wait for it to be completely populated to start with.
>>
>> If you want a bit more to add:
>>
>> WAYLAND EGL SUPPORT
>> R: Daniel Stone <daniels at collabora.com>
>> F: src/egl/wayland/*
>> F: src/egl/drivers/dri2/platform_wayland.c
>
> So, what is this based on? Maybe I'm not looking in the right place, but
> out of hundreds of changes in Git touching those files, I see one change
> from you about six months ago and five changes with a Reviewed-by: tag
> from you over a year ago. You didn't push any changes other than your
> own either AFAICT.
>
>
> Looking at all of Mesa yields a similar picture; that is why I
> previously questioned your authority to NAK patches in Mesa.
>
>
> Don't get me wrong, I'm not questioning your authority on all things
> Wayland. Your review of Wayland related patches obviously carries a lot
> of weight. But I'd expect to see a very different footprint in the Git
> history from somebody who calls himself maintainer.
>

fwiw, I had debated about renaming the file 'REVIEWERS' or something
like that, to better reflect it's purpose (ie. it is more about
finding the right people to CC to get reviews, rather than absolute
'maintainers' (like it is in the linux kernel).  I'd left the name
since I thought that would be less confusing.  But maybe I should
change it..

BR,
-R