Re: [PATCH RFC 1/2] MAINTAINERS: Add "R:" designated-reviewers tag

[Joe Perches]

On Mon, 2014-06-02 at 14:12 -0400, Josh Boyer wrote:
> On Mon, Jun 2, 2014 at 1:59 PM, Joe Perches <joe@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> > On Mon, 2014-06-02 at 10:48 -0700, josh@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx wrote:
> >> On Mon, Jun 02, 2014 at 10:22:58AM -0700, Joe Perches wrote:
> >> > On Mon, 2014-06-02 at 10:00 -0700, Paul E. McKenney wrote:
> >> > > A ksummit-discuss email thread looked at the difficulty recruiting
> >> > > and retaining reviewers.
> >> >
> >> > []
> >> >
> >> > > Paul Walmsley also noted the need for patch
> >> > > submitters to know who the key reviewers are and suggested adding an
> >> > > "R:" tag to the MAINTAINERS file to record this information on a
> >> > > per-subsystem basis.
> >> >
> >> > I'm not sure of the value of this.
> >> >
> >> > Why not just mark the actual reviewers as maintainers?
> >>
> >> As discussed in the kernel summit discussion, being a regular patch
> >> reviewer isn't the same thing as being *the* maintainer.
> >
> > I think it's not particularly important or valuable
> > here to make that distinction.
> >
> > What real difference does it make?
> 
> It depends.  If the Maintainer moves to a model where patches must be
> reviewed before they are added to the tree, then having a designated
> reviewer helps.  It gives the patch submitter another person to
> include, and if the Reviewer acks a patch, they know it's much more
> likely to make it in-tree.
> 
> If the tree isn't managed that way, then Reviewer/Maintainer is a bit
> less distinctive, but it still provides at least some indication that
> a "maintainer" looked at the patch instead of having it just sit on
> the list.

So effectively, nothing.

--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/