Cornelia Huck <cohuck@xxxxxxxxxx> writes: > On Mon, 16 Jul 2018 09:54:12 +0200 > Thomas Huth <thuth@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > >> On 16.07.2018 09:32, Markus Armbruster wrote: >> > Libvirt developers would like to be copied on patches to qemu-doc >> > appendix "Deprecated features". Do them the favor. >> > >> > Signed-off-by: Markus Armbruster <armbru@xxxxxxxxxx> >> > --- >> > MAINTAINERS | 4 ++++ >> > 1 file changed, 4 insertions(+) >> > >> > diff --git a/MAINTAINERS b/MAINTAINERS >> > index 20eef3cb61..666e936812 100644 >> > --- a/MAINTAINERS >> > +++ b/MAINTAINERS >> > @@ -2194,6 +2194,10 @@ M: Daniel P. Berrange <berrange@xxxxxxxxxx> >> > S: Odd Fixes >> > F: docs/devel/build-system.txt >> > >> > +Incompatible changes >> > +R: libvir-list@xxxxxxxxxx >> > +F: qemu-deprecated.texi >> >> Should we have a maintainer for the file, too? (I guess not, because >> deprecation patches should go through the specific subsystems...) > > I don't think adding a maintainer makes sense for this file. This MAINTAINERS entry doesn't declare maintainers, only reviewers. We can change that if a maintainer steps up. >> And what about a "S:" line? > > I don't think that makes too much sense, either. > > If anything, qemu-deprecated.texi should be in a category 'maintained > by everybody', i.e. qemu-devel. Just like qemu-doc.texi, which does not > have an entry in MAINTAINERS at all. Just like all the other files that lack a maintainer. -- libvir-list mailing list libvir-list@xxxxxxxxxx https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/libvir-list
