On 29 April 2014 13:11, Paolo Bonzini <pbonz...@redhat.com> wrote: > It looks like we approach the issue from opposite directions. You want as > many files as possible covered by formal maintainers. I don't care about > that, and prefer more flexibility for long-time contributors. I know > Anthony didn't care, and I enjoyed the flexibility. I learnt that *you* > care (the tmp105 story). > > I don't know how much Peter cares about having stuff covered by MAINTAINERS. > The more he does, the more we need to think about how to define the status > quo in MAINTAINERS. This means I'd effectively have to add myself there in > more places.
I don't care that we should have full coverage of every file in the tree in a MAINTAINERS entry. IMHO MAINTAINERS entries are for "I care about this code and you should send changes via me specifically". Where I differ from Anthony is that I really don't have the time to do review-and-commit of individual patches which fall through the cracks between maintained areas. What I think would be preferable would be if we could set up a process where one or more people could agree to take on that aspect of what Anthony used to do, and collate those "fall between the cracks" patches into a tree, which I would then apply pull requests from in the same way I do for the trivial queue. thanks -- PMM
