On Tue, May 3, 2016 at 9:56 AM, Daniel Vetter <dan...@ffwll.ch> wrote: > 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. >
Ok, I've renamed to REVIEWERS and scripts/get_reviewer.pl and updated the verbage appropriately. I think I'll go ahead and push it this afternoon if nobody screams. No formal ack-by's, but a handful of yeah-thats-a-good-idea-by's and no objections so far. BR, -R _______________________________________________ mesa-dev mailing list mesa-dev@lists.freedesktop.org https://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/mesa-dev
