On 3/28/2023 11:00 AM, Guo, Junfeng wrote: > + Rushil Gupta <[email protected]> > >> -----Original Message----- >> From: Guo, Junfeng <[email protected]> >> Sent: Tuesday, March 28, 2023 17:45 >> To: Zhang, Qi Z <[email protected]>; Wu, Jingjing >> <[email protected]>; [email protected]; Xing, Beilei >> <[email protected]> >> Cc: [email protected]; Guo, Junfeng <[email protected]> >> Subject: [PATCH v3 3/3] net/gve: add maintainers for GVE >> >> Add maintainers from Google for GVE. >> >> Signed-off-by: Junfeng Guo <[email protected]> >> --- >> MAINTAINERS | 3 +++ >> 1 file changed, 3 insertions(+) >> >> diff --git a/MAINTAINERS b/MAINTAINERS >> index 1a33ad8592..988c7aecfa 100644 >> --- a/MAINTAINERS >> +++ b/MAINTAINERS >> @@ -714,6 +714,9 @@ F: doc/guides/nics/features/enic.ini >> >> Google Virtual Ethernet >> M: Junfeng Guo <[email protected]> >> +M: Jeroen de Borst <[email protected]> >> +M: Rushil Gupta <[email protected]> >> +M: Joshua Washington <[email protected]> >> F: drivers/net/gve/ >> F: doc/guides/nics/gve.rst >> F: doc/guides/nics/features/gve.ini
New maintainers were not part of the upstreaming process, so we don't know much about the engagement and commitment level of them. However, as far as I understand they are the base code owners, which means we can trust their technical expertise that is why good to have them on board. Primarily for due diligence, would it be OK to get explicit Ack from the new maintainers, to confirm they are aware of and agree to the responsibilities they are accepting?
