Re: Subsystem maintainers

[Thomas Schwinge <thomas at codesourcery dot com>]

Hi!

On Tue, 07 Oct 2014 21:44:45 +0200, Torvald Riegel <triegel@redhat.com> wrote:
> On Tue, 2014-10-07 at 14:07 -0400, Carlos O'Donell wrote:
> > On 10/07/2014 12:22 PM, Joseph S. Myers wrote:
> > > Perhaps we should have subsystem maintainers for more areas than just 
> > > architecture ports, where the number of people interested in a particular 
> > > area is limited?  The principle would be that changes by those people in 
> > > those areas are presumed to have consensus and not need someone else to 
> > > review them, in the absence of any actual objections that show the absence 
> > > of consensus (but it would still be the case that anyone could express 
> > > their concerns about such a change, or a change in such an area could 
> > > reach consensus through review by people other than the subsystem 
> > > maintainers, especially when it's just part of a global change, just as 
> > > today with architecture changes).
> > 
> > I agree. We should have some kind of subsystem maintainers to simplify
> > the process of finding an expert to review your patch, and simplifying
> > the work for the subsystem maintainer.
> > 
> > > I'd be willing to be a subsystem maintainer in this sense for soft-fp and 
> > > the conform/ tests.
> > 
> > We should see consensus on the idea of subsystem maintainers.
> > 
> > I'd like to see others comment that they are OK with the idea.
> 
> This would be fine with me.  If we have areas of glibc where only a few
> people (or, 1 person) are knowledgeable enough to maintain it, then we
> can as well be honest about it :)

I agree.  So, basically, extend (and rename)
<https://sourceware.org/glibc/wiki/MAINTAINERS#Reviewers_by_component>.


GrÃÃe,
 Thomas

Attachment: pgpd5Lf88SALx.pgp
Description: PGP signature