On Mon, May 02, 2016 at 06:44:34AM -0400, Rob Clark wrote: > On Mon, May 2, 2016 at 2:15 AM, Michel Dänzer <mic...@daenzer.net> wrote: > > On 25.04.2016 21:36, Daniel Stone wrote: > >> On 20 April 2016 at 00:32, Rob Clark <robdcl...@gmail.com> wrote: > >>> On Tue, Apr 19, 2016 at 7:04 PM, Matt Turner <matts...@gmail.com> wrote: > >>>> Let's let people add themselves to the file if they want. No point in > >>>> trying to populate it up front. > >>> > >>> yeah, I expect people to add themselves, and for the MAINTAINERS file > >>> to evolve over time.. if people like the idea I'll send a non-rfc > >>> version of the patch which whatever entries people ask me to add > >>> themselves for over the next week or so.. mostly just to avoid > >>> starting off with a completely empty file. But wasn't planning to > >>> wait for it to be completely populated to start with. > >> > >> If you want a bit more to add: > >> > >> WAYLAND EGL SUPPORT > >> R: Daniel Stone <dani...@collabora.com> > >> F: src/egl/wayland/* > >> F: src/egl/drivers/dri2/platform_wayland.c > > > > So, what is this based on? Maybe I'm not looking in the right place, but > > out of hundreds of changes in Git touching those files, I see one change > > from you about six months ago and five changes with a Reviewed-by: tag > > from you over a year ago. You didn't push any changes other than your > > own either AFAICT. > > > > > > Looking at all of Mesa yields a similar picture; that is why I > > previously questioned your authority to NAK patches in Mesa. > > > > > > Don't get me wrong, I'm not questioning your authority on all things > > Wayland. Your review of Wayland related patches obviously carries a lot > > of weight. But I'd expect to see a very different footprint in the Git > > history from somebody who calls himself maintainer. > > > > fwiw, I had debated about renaming the file 'REVIEWERS' or something > like that, to better reflect it's purpose (ie. it is more about > finding the right people to CC to get reviews, rather than absolute > 'maintainers' (like it is in the linux kernel). I'd left the name > since I thought that would be less confusing. But maybe I should > change it..
I think a REVIEWERS would be really useful for mesa (we're getting to the point where no longer everyone knows everyone else), and would also be much clearer in conveying the intended usage. +1 on that from me, who's mostly an outside occasionally jumping in. And I think that'd be the audience for such a tool really. Cheers, Daniel -- Daniel Vetter Software Engineer, Intel Corporation http://blog.ffwll.ch _______________________________________________ mesa-dev mailing list mesa-dev@lists.freedesktop.org https://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/mesa-dev
