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

[Michel Dänzer]

On 04.05.2016 00:11, Rob Clark wrote:
> 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.

Thanks for clearing up the confusion.


-- 
Earthling Michel Dänzer               |               http://www.amd.com
Libre software enthusiast             |             Mesa and X developer