On Mon, 15 Jun 2020, Chris Boot wrote: > On 15/06/2020 00:28, Finn Thain wrote: > > On Sun, 14 Jun 2020, Chris Boot wrote: > > > >> I expect that if someone finds this useful it can stick around (but > >> that's not my call). > > > > Who's call is that? If the patch had said "From: Martin K. Petersen" > > and "This driver is being removed because it has the following > > defects..." that would be some indication of a good-faith willingness > > to accept users as developers in the spirit of the GPL, which is what > > you seem to be alluding to (?). > > If you're asking me, I'd say it was martin's call: > > > SCSI TARGET SUBSYSTEM > > M: "Martin K. Petersen" <martin.petersen@xxxxxxxxxx> > [...] > > F: drivers/target/ > > F: include/target/ > The question I asked you was intended to make you think. I wasn't asking you to search MAINTAINERS for "drivers/target" (I had already done so). Chris, you can find my name in that file too. That's because I see my role as custodian of that particular code. That code lives in the kernel.org tree because others put it there and because users find it useful -- not merely because it happens to please the official glorious MAINTAINER of said code. If you would ask, "who's call is it to delete drivers/nubus? or drivers/scsi/NCR5380.c?" my answer is, I have no idea. > >> I just don't have the time or inclination or hardware to be able to > >> maintain it anymore, so someone else would have to pick it up. > >> > > > > Which is why most drivers get orphaned, right? > > Sure, but that's not what Martin asked me to do, hence this patch. > Martin said, "I'd appreciate a patch to remove it" And Bart said, "do you want to keep this driver in the kernel tree?" AFAICT both comments are quite ambiguous. I don't see an actionable request, just an expression of interest from people doing their jobs. Note well: there is no pay check associated with having a MAINTAINERS file entry.
