From: Ian Jackson <ian.jackson@citrix.com>
To: George Dunlap <george.dunlap@citrix.com>
Cc: Juergen Gross <jgross@suse.com>,
Lars Kurth <lars.kurth@citrix.com>,
Stefano Stabellini <sstabellini@kernel.org>,
Wei Liu <wei.liu2@citrix.com>,
Konrad Wilk <konrad.wilk@oracle.com>,
Andrew Cooper <Andrew.Cooper3@citrix.com>,
"Tim (Xen.org)" <tim@xen.org>,
Julien Grall <julien.grall@arm.com>,
Jan Beulich <jbeulich@suse.com>,
"xen-devel@lists.xenproject.org" <xen-devel@lists.xenproject.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] MAINTAINERS: Add explicit check-in policy section
Date: Thu, 9 May 2019 12:05:46 +0100 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <23764.2442.337734.122162@mariner.uk.xensource.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <fa19ab5c-0d20-a198-74f4-6ee2fbf00c92@citrix.com>
George Dunlap writes ("Re: [Xen-devel] [PATCH] MAINTAINERS: Add explicit check-in policy section"):
> On 5/8/19 12:59 PM, Juergen Gross wrote:
> > 2. In the case the submitter is a maintainer of a modified file it must
> > have an Ack or Review from either a "nested" maintainer or a Designated
> > reviewer of that file.
>
> That changes the current meaning of "Designated Reviewer" somewhat. At
> the moment, it only means "Send this person an email"; if we did that,
> it would mean, "This person is more trusted to do reviews than others".
>
> Not sure what I think about that yet.
I think this is a bad idea. The purpose was to provide a way for
someone to be emailed which doesn't involve giving them authority,
and which is therefore a status which can be granted on request and
does not require any assessment etc.
If we chane this we will have to invent a new status to perform this
function.
Ian.
_______________________________________________
Xen-devel mailing list
Xen-devel@lists.xenproject.org
https://lists.xenproject.org/mailman/listinfo/xen-devel
WARNING: multiple messages have this Message-ID (diff)
From: Ian Jackson <ian.jackson@citrix.com>
To: George Dunlap <george.dunlap@citrix.com>
Cc: Juergen Gross <jgross@suse.com>,
Lars Kurth <lars.kurth@citrix.com>,
Stefano Stabellini <sstabellini@kernel.org>,
Wei Liu <wei.liu2@citrix.com>,
Konrad Wilk <konrad.wilk@oracle.com>,
Andrew Cooper <Andrew.Cooper3@citrix.com>,
"Tim \(Xen.org\)" <tim@xen.org>,
Julien Grall <julien.grall@arm.com>,
Jan Beulich <jbeulich@suse.com>,
"xen-devel@lists.xenproject.org" <xen-devel@lists.xenproject.org>
Subject: Re: [Xen-devel] [PATCH] MAINTAINERS: Add explicit check-in policy section
Date: Thu, 9 May 2019 12:05:46 +0100 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <23764.2442.337734.122162@mariner.uk.xensource.com> (raw)
Message-ID: <20190509110546.2iFc1n2dBQ1XRtcWTkqySEhF8sEUouklyd24xLos7EE@z> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <fa19ab5c-0d20-a198-74f4-6ee2fbf00c92@citrix.com>
George Dunlap writes ("Re: [Xen-devel] [PATCH] MAINTAINERS: Add explicit check-in policy section"):
> On 5/8/19 12:59 PM, Juergen Gross wrote:
> > 2. In the case the submitter is a maintainer of a modified file it must
> > have an Ack or Review from either a "nested" maintainer or a Designated
> > reviewer of that file.
>
> That changes the current meaning of "Designated Reviewer" somewhat. At
> the moment, it only means "Send this person an email"; if we did that,
> it would mean, "This person is more trusted to do reviews than others".
>
> Not sure what I think about that yet.
I think this is a bad idea. The purpose was to provide a way for
someone to be emailed which doesn't involve giving them authority,
and which is therefore a status which can be granted on request and
does not require any assessment etc.
If we chane this we will have to invent a new status to perform this
function.
Ian.
_______________________________________________
Xen-devel mailing list
Xen-devel@lists.xenproject.org
https://lists.xenproject.org/mailman/listinfo/xen-devel
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2019-05-09 11:06 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 18+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2019-05-08 11:39 [PATCH] MAINTAINERS: Add explicit check-in policy section George Dunlap
2019-05-08 11:39 ` [Xen-devel] " George Dunlap
2019-05-08 11:59 ` Juergen Gross
2019-05-08 11:59 ` [Xen-devel] " Juergen Gross
2019-05-08 13:45 ` George Dunlap
2019-05-08 13:45 ` [Xen-devel] " George Dunlap
2019-05-09 11:05 ` Ian Jackson [this message]
2019-05-09 11:05 ` Ian Jackson
2019-05-09 11:36 ` Jan Beulich
2019-05-09 11:36 ` [Xen-devel] " Jan Beulich
2019-05-08 13:49 ` Jan Beulich
2019-05-08 13:49 ` [Xen-devel] " Jan Beulich
2019-05-08 15:32 ` Stefano Stabellini
2019-05-08 15:32 ` [Xen-devel] " Stefano Stabellini
2019-05-09 11:16 ` Ian Jackson
2019-05-09 11:16 ` [Xen-devel] " Ian Jackson
2019-05-09 11:45 ` George Dunlap
2019-05-09 11:45 ` [Xen-devel] " George Dunlap
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=23764.2442.337734.122162@mariner.uk.xensource.com \
--to=ian.jackson@citrix.com \
--cc=Andrew.Cooper3@citrix.com \
--cc=george.dunlap@citrix.com \
--cc=jbeulich@suse.com \
--cc=jgross@suse.com \
--cc=julien.grall@arm.com \
--cc=konrad.wilk@oracle.com \
--cc=lars.kurth@citrix.com \
--cc=sstabellini@kernel.org \
--cc=tim@xen.org \
--cc=wei.liu2@citrix.com \
--cc=xen-devel@lists.xenproject.org \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is an external index of several public inboxes,
see mirroring instructions on how to clone and mirror
all data and code used by this external index.