DPDK patches and discussions
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: Tom Rix <trix@redhat.com>
To: Thomas Monjalon <thomas@monjalon.net>
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, 2 Oct 2020 09:35:14 -0700	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <2bdc59b5-820b-1cea-2d44-8ef489122366@redhat.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <1985785.NsDeZ6iOcB@thomas>

On 10/2/20 8:41 AM, Thomas Monjalon wrote:
> 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.
That's fine, i will change the patch and use the existing process.


      reply	other threads:[~2020-10-02 16:35 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
2020-10-02 16:35         ` Tom Rix [this message]

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:

* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
  switches of git-send-email(1):

  git send-email \
    --in-reply-to=2bdc59b5-820b-1cea-2d44-8ef489122366@redhat.com \
    --to=trix@redhat.com \
    --cc=dev@dpdk.org \
    --cc=nicolas.chautru@intel.com \
    --cc=thomas@monjalon.net \


* 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).