Am 26.06.20 um 06:43 schrieb Sumit Semwal:
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.
Should I maybe add myself as maintainer as well? I've written enough
stuff in there to know the code quite a bit.
Christian.
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
