From: Thomas Monjalon <thomas@monjalon.net>
To: Tom Rix <trix@redhat.com>
Cc: "Chautru, Nicolas" <nicolas.chautru@intel.com>,
"dev@dpdk.org" <dev@dpdk.org>
Subject: Re: [dpdk-dev] [PATCH] maintainers: New Reviewer entry type added to MAINTAINERS
Date: Fri, 02 Oct 2020 17:41:07 +0200 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <1985785.NsDeZ6iOcB@thomas> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <1dbf4aaf-7a77-101d-24ea-6e3faec6165f@redhat.com>
02/10/2020 16:59, Tom Rix:
>
> On 10/1/20 2:54 PM, Thomas Monjalon wrote:
> > 01/10/2020 23:22, Chautru, Nicolas:
> >> From: trix@redhat.com <trix@redhat.com>
> >>> From: Tom Rix <trix@redhat.com>
> >>>
> >>> Copied from the Linux kernel MAINTAINERS file.
> >>> A Reviewer is designated person who wishes to review changes in areas of
> >>> interest.
> >>>
> >>> Added self as Reviewer for baseband.
> >>>
> >>> I am a Linux kernel Reviewer for the fpga n3000/vista creek which has
> >>> several bitstream based baseband devices. So I want to help out here as
> >>> well.
> >>>
> >>> Signed-off-by: Tom Rix <trix@redhat.com>
> >> Thanks for the help.
> >> Note that they are a few other BBDEV patches in flight for 20.11 on top of the acc100 PMD that you may want to be aware of.
> >> https://patches.dpdk.org/project/dpdk/list/?series=&submitter=chautru&state=&q=&archive=&delegate=
> >>
> >> Acked-by: Nicolas Chautru <nicolas.chautru@intel.com>
> > [...]
> >>> Baseband API - EXPERIMENTAL
> >>> M: Nicolas Chautru <nicolas.chautru@intel.com>
> >>> +R: Tom Rix <trix@redhat.com>
> > I don't understand the need of differenciating maintainer and reviewer.
> > If you are trusted enough, why not just being co-maintainer?
> >
> I want to help out with the reviews, the reviewer type makes clear this level of commitment.
>
> Maintainer is the next, higher level of commitment.
>
>
> Trust wise, this would allow the maintainer verify the reviewer does have the bandwidth to be responsive
>
> and effective before committing to sharing responsibility.
Sorry I fail to understand.
My understanding is that you want to be Cc
but not committing for responsibility.
Would it be the same if you create a mail filter on your side?
This model is really not clear to me so I'm reluctant to add
such new category until I understand the benefit.
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2020-10-02 15:41 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 6+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2020-10-01 14:30 trix
2020-10-01 21:22 ` Chautru, Nicolas
2020-10-01 21:54 ` Thomas Monjalon
2020-10-02 14:59 ` Tom Rix
2020-10-02 15:41 ` Thomas Monjalon [this message]
2020-10-02 16:35 ` Tom Rix
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=1985785.NsDeZ6iOcB@thomas \
--to=thomas@monjalon.net \
--cc=dev@dpdk.org \
--cc=nicolas.chautru@intel.com \
--cc=trix@redhat.com \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox;
as well as URLs for NNTP newsgroup(s).