On 04.05.2016 00:11, Rob Clark wrote: > On Tue, May 3, 2016 at 9:56 AM, Daniel Vetter <dan...@ffwll.ch> wrote: >> On Mon, May 02, 2016 at 06:44:34AM -0400, Rob Clark wrote: >>> On Mon, May 2, 2016 at 2:15 AM, Michel Dänzer <mic...@daenzer.net> wrote: >>>> On 25.04.2016 21:36, Daniel Stone wrote: >>>>> On 20 April 2016 at 00:32, Rob Clark <robdcl...@gmail.com> wrote: >>>>>> On Tue, Apr 19, 2016 at 7:04 PM, Matt Turner <matts...@gmail.com> wrote: >>>>>>> Let's let people add themselves to the file if they want. No point in >>>>>>> trying to populate it up front. >>>>>> >>>>>> yeah, I expect people to add themselves, and for the MAINTAINERS file >>>>>> to evolve over time.. if people like the idea I'll send a non-rfc >>>>>> version of the patch which whatever entries people ask me to add >>>>>> themselves for over the next week or so.. mostly just to avoid >>>>>> starting off with a completely empty file. But wasn't planning to >>>>>> wait for it to be completely populated to start with. >>>>> >>>>> If you want a bit more to add: >>>>> >>>>> WAYLAND EGL SUPPORT >>>>> R: Daniel Stone <dani...@collabora.com> >>>>> F: src/egl/wayland/* >>>>> F: src/egl/drivers/dri2/platform_wayland.c >>>> >>>> So, what is this based on? Maybe I'm not looking in the right place, but >>>> out of hundreds of changes in Git touching those files, I see one change >>>> from you about six months ago and five changes with a Reviewed-by: tag >>>> from you over a year ago. You didn't push any changes other than your >>>> own either AFAICT. >>>> >>>> >>>> Looking at all of Mesa yields a similar picture; that is why I >>>> previously questioned your authority to NAK patches in Mesa. >>>> >>>> >>>> Don't get me wrong, I'm not questioning your authority on all things >>>> Wayland. Your review of Wayland related patches obviously carries a lot >>>> of weight. But I'd expect to see a very different footprint in the Git >>>> history from somebody who calls himself maintainer. >>>> >>> >>> fwiw, I had debated about renaming the file 'REVIEWERS' or something >>> like that, to better reflect it's purpose (ie. it is more about >>> finding the right people to CC to get reviews, rather than absolute >>> 'maintainers' (like it is in the linux kernel). I'd left the name >>> since I thought that would be less confusing. But maybe I should >>> change it.. >> >> I think a REVIEWERS would be really useful for mesa (we're getting to the >> point where no longer everyone knows everyone else), and would also be >> much clearer in conveying the intended usage. >> >> +1 on that from me, who's mostly an outside occasionally jumping in. And I >> think that'd be the audience for such a tool really. >> > > Ok, I've renamed to REVIEWERS and scripts/get_reviewer.pl and updated > the verbage appropriately.
Thanks for clearing up the confusion. -- Earthling Michel Dänzer | http://www.amd.com Libre software enthusiast | Mesa and X developer _______________________________________________ mesa-dev mailing list mesa-dev@lists.freedesktop.org https://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/mesa-dev
