On Tuesday, July 03, 2012, Daniel Lezcano wrote: > On 07/02/2012 09:49 PM, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote: > > On Monday, July 02, 2012, Daniel Lezcano wrote: > >> > >> On 07/02/2012 11:09 AM, Linus Walleij wrote: > >>> On Mon, Jun 25, 2012 at 3:27 PM, Daniel Lezcano > >>> <daniel.lezcano@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > >>> > >>>> we discussed last week to put in place a tree grouping the cpuidle > >>>> modifications [1]. Is it possible to add the tree ? > >>>> > >>>> git://git.linaro.org/people/dlezcano/cpuidle-next.git #cpuidle-next > >>> > >>> Thanks for doing this. > >>> > >>> Since MAINTAINERS is lacking a listed maintainer for cpuidle, > >>> are you also going to add yourself as maintainer and list this > >>> tree in that file, or is this a one-time exercise? > >> > >> I will be glad to do that if Len and Rafael agree on that. > > > > Len Brown has been a cpuidle maintainer for some time now. Moreover, > > he's been taking patches, but Linus refused to pull his entire tree during the > > last merge window (as you probably know). I honestly don't think this is > > a good enough reason for replacing him as a cpuidle maintainer by force. > > > > So, you should ask Len whether or not he's willing to pass the cpuidle > > maintenance to someone else. > > No, no. You are misunderstanding what I am proposing. I don't want to > replace Len I just want to act as a "proxy". I understand a maintainer > can be busy and could not have enough time to take care of the subsystem > is maintaining during a period because he's too busy for that. > Trust me, I fully understand that :) > > As there are a lot of modifications of cpuidle, I am proposing to take > the patches when they are acked-by, to create a consolidated tree, > providing a better integration for cpuidle, a wider testing, preventing > conflicts and facilitating Len's work if he agrees to pull from this tree. > > If that makes sense to add myself to the MAINTAINER file as a > co-maintainer (understand: send to me also the patches, so I can take > care of them if Len does not respond), I am ok with that. > > It is just about helping :) Cool. :-) So do you have a branch in the cpuidle-next.git tree that isn't going to be rebased? > > I know that Len hasn't been responsive recently, but I also know that he > > _does_ respond to inquiries sent directly to him. > > Do you mean to its intel address ? Yes, CCing the Len's Intel address won't hurt I think. Thanks, Rafael
