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

[Rob Clark]

On Tue, May 3, 2016 at 9:56 AM, Daniel Vetter <daniel at ffwll.ch> wrote:
> 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.
>

Ok, I've renamed to REVIEWERS and scripts/get_reviewer.pl and updated
the verbage appropriately.

I think I'll go ahead and push it this afternoon if nobody screams.
No formal ack-by's, but a handful of yeah-thats-a-good-idea-by's and
no objections so far.

BR,
-R