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

[Daniel Vetter]

On Mon, May 02, 2016 at 06:44:34AM -0400, Rob Clark wrote:
> 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..

I think a REVIEWERS would be really useful for mesa (we're getting to the
point where no longer everyone knows everyone else), and would also be
much clearer in conveying the intended usage.

+1 on that from me, who's mostly an outside occasionally jumping in. And I
think that'd be the audience for such a tool really.

Cheers, Daniel
-- 
Daniel Vetter
Software Engineer, Intel Corporation
http://blog.ffwll.ch