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.
Tom
prev parent 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:
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=2bdc59b5-820b-1cea-2d44-8ef489122366@redhat.com \
--to=trix@redhat.com \
--cc=dev@dpdk.org \
--cc=nicolas.chautru@intel.com \
--cc=thomas@monjalon.net \
/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).