Re: Introducing status field to MAINTAINERS?

[Bruce Richardson <bruce.richardson@intel.com>]

On Mon, Jul 17, 2023 at 06:04:51PM +0200, Thomas Monjalon wrote:
> 17/07/2023 16:12, Bruce Richardson:
> > On Mon, Jul 03, 2023 at 03:10:57PM -0700, Stephen Hemminger wrote:
> > > While going through the old patches, noticed some that are in parts
> > > of DPDK that are pretty much abandoned.
> > > 
> > > My suggestion would be introduce a subsystem status field in MAINTAINERS
> > > similar to what is done in Linux kernel.
> > > 
> > > 	S: *Status*, one of the following:
> > > 	   Supported:	Someone is actually paid to look after this.
> > > 	   Maintained:	Someone actually looks after it.
> > > 	   Odd Fixes:	It has a maintainer but they don't have time to do
> > > 			much other than throw the odd patch in. See below..
> > > 	   Orphan:	No current maintainer [but maybe you could take the
> > > 			role as you write your new code].
> > > 	   Obsolete:	Old code. Something tagged obsolete generally means
> > > 			it has been replaced by a better system and you
> > > 			should be using that.
> > 
> > That seems a useful addition. +1 to add the extra info.
> 
> I think we prefer removing unmaintained code.
> 
Yes, but this gives us a good way to flag and track what the status of the
code is, so that we can see what is clearly unmaintained, or at risk of
becoming unmaintained. I really like this status option because it gives us
grades of maintenance - not just maintained/unmaintained binary option. For
example, the FreeBSD port of DPDK is maintained, but given how much time I
as maintainer spend on it, it would fall into the "Odd Fixes" category -
which gives anyone checking up on it a lot more information about its
future support than just saying it's "being maintained".