Peter Maydell <peter.mayd...@linaro.org> writes: > On 6 November 2018 at 18:52, Thomas Huth <th...@redhat.com> wrote: >> On 2018-11-06 19:49, Philippe Mathieu-Daudé wrote: >>> On 6/11/18 19:17, Thomas Huth wrote: >>>> There is no active maintainer, but since Peter is picking up >>>> patches via qemu-...@nongnu.org, I think we could at least use >>>> "Odd Fixes" as status here. >>> >>> This looks more as "Orphan" to me... >> >> I'll leave it up to Peter for the final decision... > > I think we're not very consistent[*] in our usage of the various > statuses in the MAINTAINERS file. I guess "Odd Fixes" makes > sense in that, well, if you send a patch to this > code and cc me I'll review it and put it in the tree. (This > is true of any of the arm boards we have.) > > [*] We have one thing tagged Orphan, which is bsd-user/, > and some things tagged Odd Fixes with no listed maintainer, > and some things tagged Odd Fixes which are in practice more > like Orphan (for instance sh4), and we list "fpu/" as > Odd Fixes despite having given it a pretty thorough > overhaul very recently, and so on... > > If you wanted a mechanizable rule, you could try something > like "every file which is in status Odd Fixes or better > must list with M: at least one named individual who has > submitted a pull request in the last nine months" :-)
Sounds like an excellent idea to me!
