On Wed, Dec 14, 2022 at 04:26:42PM +0530, Viresh Kumar wrote: > 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> If a maintainer acks a patch I generally expect that the patch is good. If we have a maintainer who's not familiar with the codebase, this assumption does not hold. R: would be ok with me. > -- > viresh _______________________________________________ Virtualization mailing list Virtualization@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/virtualization
