On 08/07/16 14:22, Lorenzo Pieralisi wrote:
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 agree.
I really doubt there is any risk of me slowing things down.
Does this sound reasonable ? Comments/complaints welcome, please
manifest yourselves.
Yes sounds good to me.
--
Regards,
Sudeep
--
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
