From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from smtp1.linuxfoundation.org (smtp1.linux-foundation.org [172.17.192.35]) by mail.linuxfoundation.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2680C82D for ; Fri, 30 May 2014 00:47:56 +0000 (UTC) Received: from utopia.booyaka.com (utopia.booyaka.com [74.50.51.50]) by smtp1.linuxfoundation.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id A72331FD49 for ; Fri, 30 May 2014 00:47:55 +0000 (UTC) Date: Fri, 30 May 2014 00:47:54 +0000 (UTC) From: Paul Walmsley To: Rob Herring In-Reply-To: Message-ID: References: <1400925225.6956.25.camel@dabdike.int.hansenpartnership.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Cc: James Bottomley , "ksummit-discuss@lists.linuxfoundation.org" Subject: Re: [Ksummit-discuss] [TOPIC] Encouraging more reviewers List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , On Wed, 28 May 2014, Rob Herring wrote: > What really needs to change here as we already essentially have this > today. Getting more reviewer bandwidth is why we have 5 DT binding > maintainers. Yeah, under the change that was proposed earlier, most of those people would be "officially designated reviewers" if they're not testing patches and sending them upstream. > DT bindings are a bit unique in that almost everything goes in thru > other maintainers trees, so the role is almost entirely reviews. But > what's to say a co-maintainers role is not solely reviews. How > co-maintainers split up the load is really an internal decision among > them. > > Do we really have people we trust to review that we wouldn't trust to > be a co-maintainer? Maintainers have different responsibilities than reviewers: 1. Maintainers batch up patches, resolve conflicts with other trees, and send pull requests upstream 2. Leaf maintainers should be testing everything they send upstream, at least in some basic fashion 3. Maintainers are responsible for setting some kind of architectural direction for the parts of the kernel that they maintain - Paul