[Mesa-dev] [RFC] add MAINTAINERS and get_maintainer.pl script
michel at daenzer.net
Fri May 6 07:58:02 UTC 2016
On 02.05.2016 20:01, Daniel Stone wrote:
> On 2 May 2016 at 11:44, Rob Clark <robdclark at gmail.com> wrote:
>> On Mon, May 2, 2016 at 2:15 AM, Michel Dänzer <michel at daenzer.net> wrote:
>>> 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..
> That's exactly what I meant, rather than a land grab on authority. But
> if you're unhappy having my name there, [...]
I'm happy with it being there, now that the intent has been clarified.
> And if this is some kind of proxy argument about scanout formats, [...]
It's not; I'm not the one who keeps referring to that patch indirectly.
> The only concerns came from, as you say, someone with no grounds to
That's not what I said or meant. Questioning authority to NAK patches !=
denying right to comment.
Earthling Michel Dänzer | http://www.amd.com
Libre software enthusiast | Mesa and X developer
More information about the mesa-dev