[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index] Re: [Xen-devel] [PATCH v2] MAINTAINERS: Document maintainers for xen/common/
At 19:02 +0100 on 17 Sep (1442516564), Ian Jackson wrote: > 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 Right, I see. Yes, that is what I was proposing, though thinking about it I'm not so sure any more. There seem to be three possibilities -- filter everything per-file: for each file touched: M := 'normal' maintainers if M is empty and the file is in xen/, M := REST OF HYPERVISOR if M is empty, M := THE REST CCLIST += M Filter xen/ per-file but leave THE REST as it is now: for each file touched: M := 'normal' maintainers if M is empty and the file is in xen/, M := REST OF HYPERVISOR CCLIST += M if CCLIST is empty, CCLIST := THE REST or only use the fallbacks if nothing in the patch has a real maintainer: for each file touched: CCLIST += 'normal' maintainers if CCLIST is empty and any file is in xen/, CCLIST := REST OF HYPERVISOR if CCLIST is empty, CCLIST := THE REST There's a tradeoff between how noisy it gets for the fallback maintainers and wanting to make sure that someone relevant is always CC'd. I think on balance we can rely on the maintainers to ask for second opinions if they find a patch that touches a lot of common code, i.e. I prefer the third option. Cheers, Tim. _______________________________________________ Xen-devel mailing list Xen-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxx http://lists.xen.org/xen-devel
|
Lists.xenproject.org is hosted with RackSpace, monitoring our |