Re: [Xen-devel] [PATCH v2] MAINTAINERS: Document maintainers for xen/common/

["Jan Beulich" <jbeulich@xxxxxxxx>]

>>> Ian Jackson <Ian.Jackson@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> 09/17/15 8:02 PM >>>
>Tim Deegan writes ("Re: [PATCH v2] MAINTAINERS: Document maintainers for 
>xen/common/"):
>> I would rather your v1 plus an appropriate change to get_maintainers.
>
>I am happy to implement in get_maintainers whatever is decided.
>
>At the moment there is one kind of fallback:
>
>(i) `THE REST' gets CCd iff no file pointed to any other maintainer
>
>What you may be proposing is a subtly different kind of fallback:
>
>(ii) `REST OF THE HYPERVISOR' gets CCd iff the patch touches any files
   >in xen/ which do not have another maintainer
>
>The difference is apparent in patches which touch both more specific
>and less specific items.
>
>Alternatively maybe you are proposing that we should have two
>hierarchical fallbacks: `REST OF THE HYPERVISOR' gets CCd if any file
>is in xen/ is touched but is skipped BUT only if no file pointed to
>another maintainer.

I have to admit being confused by the wording, namely the two "but", but also 
the
last part of the sentence (repeating text from (i) above). For the latter - 
isn't the
current model "CC if any file pointed to be no other maintainer"? I'd basically 
see
_that_ extended in the hierarchical(?) manner you mention. Since - afaics - the
result is the same whether it's done hierarchically or as alternatives, I'm not 
sure
"hierarchical" actually applies.

Jan


_______________________________________________
Xen-devel mailing list
Xen-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
http://lists.xen.org/xen-devel