On 14-12-22, 11:20, Wolfram Sang wrote: > Dunno if this is really a rule, but if a maintainer steps out and makes > sure there is someone to pick up the work, this is more than welcome. > Way better than a stale entry in the MAINTAINERS file. Sure, a stale entry is always bad. > I mean, it does not limit the chance to have further maintainers, for > example. I believe in meritocracy here. Those who do and collaborate, > shall get responsibility. If not, then not. We can fix this, too, if > needed. > > What is the reason for your question? It was a general question that I asked myself and didn't know an answer to. I wasn't sure if adding someone to be a maintainer here to a driver, which they haven't contributed to until now (at least based on open source commits), is right or not, since this isn't a stale entry in MAINTAINERS anyway. An entry as R: would be okay normally IMO, as this makes sure interested party is kept aware of the development in the area. An M: entry somehow gives a higher level of authority to the person and without any prior contributions, it feels tricky at least. Anyway, I don't have any objection to the patch at least as it was primarily developed by Intel engineers. Acked-by: Viresh Kumar <viresh.kumar@xxxxxxxxxx> -- viresh _______________________________________________ Virtualization mailing list Virtualization@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/virtualization
