On 7/30/07, Diego Novillo <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On 7/27/07 9:58 AM, Zdenek Dvorak wrote: > > Hello, > > > >> I liked the idea of 'Reviewers' more than any of the other options. > >> I would like to go with this patch, unless we find a much better > >> option? > > > > to cancel this category of maintainers completely? > > An interesting idea, but let's discuss that issue separately. In this > thread I'm only interested in changing the name of this category. Not > discuss whether the category should exist at all. > > Since I have not heard any strong opposition to changing the category > name to 'Reviewers', I will go ahead with this patch later this week. > > > Index: MAINTAINERS > =================================================================== > --- MAINTAINERS (revision 126951) > +++ MAINTAINERS (working copy) > @@ -231,7 +231,7 @@ > maintainers need approval to check in algorithmic changes or changes > outside of the parts of the compiler they maintain. > > - Non-Autopoiesis Maintainers > + Reviewers > > dataflow Daniel Berlin [EMAIL PROTECTED] > dataflow Paolo Bonzini [EMAIL PROTECTED] > @@ -251,10 +251,9 @@ > Fortran Paul Thomas [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > > -Note that individuals who maintain parts of the compiler as > -non-autopoiesis maintainers need approval changes outside of the parts > -of the compiler they maintain and also need approval for their own > -patches. > +Note that individuals who maintain parts of the compiler as reviewers > +need approval for changes outside of the parts of the compiler they > +maintain and also need approval for their own patches.
Now that the name has been changed to reviewer, I think the following wording is slightly better: While reviewers can approve the changes in the parts of the compiler they maintain, they still need approval of their own patches from other maintainers or reviewers. > Write After Approval (last name alphabetical > order) -- #pragma ident "Seongbae Park, compiler, http://seongbae.blogspot.com"