On Fri, Jun 07, 2019 at 08:59:31AM +0200, Markus Armbruster wrote: > Paolo Bonzini <pbonz...@redhat.com> writes: > > > On 27/05/19 10:00, Markus Armbruster wrote: > >> As long as we don't have an active QOM maintainer[*], the benefit is > >> low. > >> > >> > >> [*] We need one. I'm not volunteering. > > > > I think Daniel, Eduardo and I could count as de facto maintainer. I > > guess I could maintain it if I get two partners in crime as reviewers. > > Alright, we need two volunteers for the reviewer role, and one patch to > MAINTAINERS. > > A mention in MAINTAINERS is the traditional punishment for good work, so > let's see who's been doing the work. Aha: > > Eduardo Habkost > Marc-André Lureau > Markus Armbruster > Eric Blake > Philippe Mathieu-Daudé > > Details appended. > > QOM is not a particularly active subsystem now: 51 commits in two years. > > We obviously need maintainers to review and merge patches. The nominal > maintainer hasn't been doing that since 2015. Git shows the following > top committers taking on / getting sucked into QOM: > > Markus Armbruster <arm...@redhat.com> > Eduardo Habkost <ehabk...@redhat.com> > Paolo Bonzini <pbonz...@redhat.com> > Marc-André Lureau <marcandre.lur...@redhat.com> > Eric Blake <ebl...@redhat.com> > > We really need nominal maintainer(s) again. > > Of course, *active* maintainers would be even better: I consider QOM > stuck in an unhappy place where much of its potential is still > potential. > > But let's start small. Volunteers for the reviewer role, please step > forward :)
I'm happy to be a reviewer since I understand the code fairly well. I don't want to volunteer to be maintainer as I can't promise to be timely at dealing with yet another patch queue. Regards, Daniel -- |: https://berrange.com -o- https://www.flickr.com/photos/dberrange :| |: https://libvirt.org -o- https://fstop138.berrange.com :| |: https://entangle-photo.org -o- https://www.instagram.com/dberrange :|
