On Mon, Jun 2, 2014 at 1:59 PM, Joe Perches <j...@perches.com> wrote: > On Mon, 2014-06-02 at 10:48 -0700, j...@joshtriplett.org 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. josh -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
