On Fri, 26 Jun 2020 at 01:24, Daniel Vetter <daniel@xxxxxxxx> wrote: > > Ignoring everything else ... > > On Thu, Jun 25, 2020 at 9:28 PM Jani Nikula <jani.nikula@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > As a side note, there seem to be extra checks in place for acks when > > applying non-i915 patches to drm-intel; there are no such checks for > > drm-misc. > > One option to generalize that that I pondered is to consult > get_maintainers.pl asking for git repo link, and if that returns > something else, then insist that there's an ack from a relevant > maintainer. It's a bit of typing, but I think the bigger problem is > that there's a ton of false positives. Right; for the particular patch, I wasn't even in the to: or cc: field and that made it slip from my radar. I would definitely ask any one sending patches for dma-buf directory to follow the get_maintainers.pl religiously. > > But maybe that's a good thing, would give some motivation to keep > MAINTAINERS updated. > > The other issue is though that drm-misc is plenty used to merge > patches even when the respective maintainers are absent for weeks, or > unresponsive. If we just blindly implement that rule, then the only > possible Ack for these would be Dave&me as subsystem maintainers, and > I don't want to be in the business of stamping approvals for all this > stuff. Much better if people just collaborate. > > So I think an ack check would be nice, but probably not practical. > > Plus in this situation here drm-misc.git actually is the main repo, > and we wont ever be able to teach a script to make a judgement call of > whether that patch has the right amount of review on it. > -Daniel Best, Sumit. _______________________________________________ dri-devel mailing list dri-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/dri-devel
