On Mon, Jan 12, 2026 at 10:00:06AM -0500, Steven Rostedt wrote: > On Sun, 11 Jan 2026 19:36:29 +0100 > Miguel Ojeda <[email protected]> wrote: > > > On Wed, Jan 7, 2026 at 1:32 PM Alice Ryhl <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > > I'm proposing to include them under the existing entries, as that seems > > > like the most obvious place to include them. However, there are multiple > > > ways to do this. If you prefer to have them elsewhere, I would also be > > > happy to create a new entry with me as maintaining them, or I'm also > > > willing to be listed as R: under the entry. Regardless of how we list > > > them in MAINTAINERS, I will be around if anything comes up. Let me know > > > what you all prefer. > > > > I think this was meant to go after the `---`? > > > > Whatever Steven et al. are happy with, this looks fine, thanks! > > > > Acked-by: Miguel Ojeda <[email protected]> > > > > I guess the question is are those with expertise on the list of people to > Cc?
I would be on cc either way as RUST includes F: rust/. > I think it may be better to have a separate section for RUST so that the > rust maintainers can be included in the M: part too. Perhaps: > > STATIC BRANCH/CALL (RUST) > > and > > TRACING (RUST) > > And have the M of the other sections be R here? Sure, we can do that. Are you still willing to pick up the patches? I think that is simpler in case there are any series that touch both the C and Rust parts. (Such as the initial tracepoint series did.) Alice
