On Thu, Jul 07, 2016 at 03:58:04PM +0200, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote: [...] > > Anyway let's avoid these petty arguments, I agree there must be some > > sort of ARM64 ACPI maintainership for the reasons you mentioned above. > > To avoid confusion on who's going to push stuff to Linus, I can do > that, but it must be clear whose ACKs are needed for that to happen. > That may be one person or all of you, whatever you decide. I think the reasoning is the same, to avoid confusion and avoid stepping on each other toes it is best to have a single gatekeeper (still multiple maintainer entries to keep patches reviewed correctly), if no one complains I will do that and a) provide ACKs (I will definitely require and request Hanjun and Sudeep ones too appropriately on a per patch basis) and b) send you pull requests. Having a maintainer per file would be farcical, I really do not expect that amount of traffic for drivers/acpi/arm64 therefore I really doubt there is any risk of me slowing things down. Does this sound reasonable ? Comments/complaints welcome, please manifest yourselves. Thanks, Lorenzo -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-acpi" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
