On Mon, 2014-06-02 at 14:12 -0400, Josh Boyer wrote: > 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.
So effectively, nothing. -- 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/
