Re: [Xen-devel] [PATCH] MAINTAINERS: add myself for kconfig

[Lars Kurth <lars.kurth@xxxxxxxxxx>]

On 06/01/2016 14:26, "Tim Deegan" <tim@xxxxxxx> wrote:

>At 06:45 -0700 on 06 Jan (1452062722), Jan Beulich wrote:
>> >>> On 05.01.16 at 13:07, <ian.campbell@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>> > On Wed, 2015-12-16 at 08:41 -0600, Doug Goldstein wrote:
>> >> Added myself as the maintainer of kconfig.
>> >> 
>> >> CC: Ian Campbell <ian.campbell@xxxxxxxxxx>
>> >> CC: Ian Jackson <ian.jackson@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
>> >> CC: Jan Beulich <jbeulich@xxxxxxxx>
>> >> CC: Keir Fraser <keir@xxxxxxx>
>> >> CC: Tim Deegan <tim@xxxxxxx>
>> >> 
>> >> Signed-off-by: Doug Goldstein <cardoe@xxxxxxxxxx>
>> > 
>> > Acked-by: Ian Campbell <ian.campbell@xxxxxxxxxx>
>> 
>> Which reminds me that I meant to reply before the holidays,
>> but then didn't get around to.
>> 
>> To be honest, I'm not convinced. On one hand I'm certainly
>> happy for this to not fall under THE REST, but on the other
>> hand I've checked your, Doug, history on both Xen and Linux
>> without finding (on the Linux side) any Kconfig related
>> contribution, and only few earlier ones on either side. I hope
>> you understand that I'm uncertain about a relative newcomer
>> to be immediately granted maintainership over a non-negligible
>> (both in terms of size and functionality) piece of code.
>
>The usual failure mode for Xen contributors is that they leave the
>code and never follow up; this is a strong sign that Doug is going to
>stick around, and IMO ought to be encouraged!  And in any case Xen as
>a whole has a chronic lack of reviewer bandwidth which will only be
>fixed by welcoming new reviewers.
>
>If you feel like he may need some shepherding in the short term, maybe
>someone more experienced could be co-maintainer for a bit?

That sounds like a very a reasonable compromise to me. In addition, the
concern raised by Jan is also somewhat moot in practice: it is just
another instance of the unresolved mismatch between the boundaries of the
maintainer and committer role and the different expectations different
people have.

As we have seen last year in the survey, in theory - aka according to our
governance - committers should always act on the wishes (ACKs) of
maintainers. In practice it comes down to whether the committers trusts a
maintainer enough to apply patches without a re-review. If we follow the
trust principle, which IMHO is not really in conflict with the governance,
there shouldn't be an issue. That is unless, we plan to make changes to
how we operate, for which there does not seem to be consensus.

I was wondering how others see this.

Regards
Lars

_______________________________________________
Xen-devel mailing list
Xen-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
http://lists.xen.org/xen-devel