linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH] MAINTAINERS: Update maintainer list for virtio i2c

lists.openwall.net		lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC
Open Source and information security mailing list archives

Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <20221214105642.3xagckvbbgu5mubl@vireshk-i7>
Date:   Wed, 14 Dec 2022 16:26:42 +0530
From:   Viresh Kumar <viresh.kumar@...aro.org>
To:     Wolfram Sang <wsa@...nel.org>, mst@...hat.com, asowang@...hat.com,
        Conghui <conghui.chen@...el.com>, linux-i2c@...r.kernel.org,
        virtualization@...ts.linux-foundation.org,
        linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
        Jian Jun Chen <jian.jun.chen@...el.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] MAINTAINERS: Update maintainer list for virtio i2c

On 14-12-22, 11:20, Wolfram Sang wrote:
> Dunno if this is really a rule, but if a maintainer steps out and makes
> sure there is someone to pick up the work, this is more than welcome.
> Way better than a stale entry in the MAINTAINERS file.

Sure, a stale entry is always bad.

> I mean, it does not limit the chance to have further maintainers, for
> example. I believe in meritocracy here. Those who do and collaborate,
> shall get responsibility. If not, then not. We can fix this, too, if
> needed.
> 
> What is the reason for your question?

It was a general question that I asked myself and didn't know an
answer to. I wasn't sure if adding someone to be a maintainer here to
a driver, which they haven't contributed to until now (at least based
on open source commits), is right or not, since this isn't a stale
entry in MAINTAINERS anyway.

An entry as R: would be okay normally IMO, as this makes sure
interested party is kept aware of the development in the area. An M:
entry somehow gives a higher level of authority to the person and
without any prior contributions, it feels tricky at least.

Anyway, I don't have any objection to the patch at least as it was
primarily developed by Intel engineers.

Acked-by: Viresh Kumar <viresh.kumar@...aro.org>

-- 
viresh