Re: [Qemu-devel] Re: [PATCH] Use a Linux-style MAINTAINERS file

[Blue Swirl <blauwirbel@gmail.com>]

On Fri, Sep 10, 2010 at 7:05 PM, Anthony Liguori <anthony@codemonkey.ws> wrote:
> On 09/10/2010 12:45 PM, Blue Swirl wrote:
>>
>> On Thu, Sep 9, 2010 at 9:18 PM, Anthony Liguori<aliguori@us.ibm.com>
>>  wrote:
>>
>>>
>>> I make no claims that this is accurate or exhaustive but I think it's a
>>> reasonable place to start.
>>>
>>> As the file mentions, the purpose of this file is to give contributors
>>> information about who they can go to with questions about a particular
>>> piece of
>>> code or who they can ask for review.
>>>
>>> If you sign up for a piece of code and indicate that it's Maintained or
>>> Supported, please be prepared to be responsive to questions about that
>>> subsystem.
>>>
>>> Signed-off-by: Anthony Liguori<aliguori@us.ibm.com>
>>>
>>> diff --git a/MAINTAINERS b/MAINTAINERS
>>> index 79dfc7f..3894cd8 100644
>>> --- a/MAINTAINERS
>>> +++ b/MAINTAINERS
>>> @@ -9,89 +9,388 @@ to be CC'd when submitting a patch to obtain
>>> appropriate review.
>>>  In general, if you have a question about inclusion of a patch, you
>>> should
>>>  consult qemu-devel and not any specific individual privately.
>>>
>>> -Project leaders:
>>> -----------------
>>> +Please see the MAINTAINERS file in the Linux kernel for information
>>> about how
>>> +to update this file.
>>>
>>> -Paul Brook
>>> -Anthony Liguori
>>> +General Project Administration
>>> +------------------------------
>>> +M: Anthony Liguori<aliguori@us.ibm.com>
>>> +M: Paul Brook<paul@codesourcery.com>
>>>
>>>  Guest CPU cores (TCG):
>>>
>>
>> Perhaps the CPU names should be in alphabetical order.
>
> Yeah, I was thinking that alphabetical order across the board would make
> sense.
>
>>  For
>> completeness, KVM CPUs should have X: target-xxx/kvm.c, though
>> currently TCG and KVM maintainers match.
>>
>
> You mean F: right?

No, X: like exclude.

>
> I already have that in my copy.
>
>>> +SPARC Machines
>>> +--------------
>>> +Sun4u
>>>
>>
>> There is also Sun4v here, though its status could be Odd Fixes. These
>> are actually machine classes, but currently only few machines are
>> implemented.
>>
>
> What should the entry look like?

'Sun4u, Sun4v' and below: 'Sun4m, Sun4c, Sun4d'.

>>> +M: Blue Swirl<blauwirbel@gmail.com>
>>> +S: Maintained
>>>
>>
>> Maybe also the technical status should be indicated, something like
>> Unusable, Boots BIOS, Boots a kernel, Stable?
>>
>
> I'd avoid that here.  If something is unusable for long, I think that
> automatically makes it Orphan'd, no?

Sort of. Perhaps a Wiki page should be a better place for status type
information anyway.

>>> +F: hw/sun4u.c
>>> +
>>> +Sun4m
>>>
>>
>> There's also Sun4c and Sun4d machine classes. There are 9 different
>> Sun4m machines, but do we want to list them? The same thing actually
>> applies to isapc machine.
>>
>
> The granularity is what makes sense as someone who's hacking on the code.
>  So whether you think folks would need to see the difference really is up to
> you since you're the primary person in this space.

I think file level is enough.