Re: Subsystem maintainers

["Carlos O'Donell" <carlos at redhat dot com>]

On 10/07/2014 12:22 PM, Joseph S. Myers wrote:
> On Tue, 30 Sep 2014, Carlos O'Donell wrote:
> 
>> On 09/30/2014 10:40 AM, Joseph S. Myers wrote:
>>> Ping.  This patch 
>>> <https://sourceware.org/ml/libc-alpha/2014-09/msg00544.html> is pending 
>>> review.
>>
>> Who do we expect to review these patches? There is a considerable amount of
>> work required to review soft-fp, and at present I find it hard to be motivated
>> for anything but hard float.
> 
> (With reference to 
> <https://sourceware.org/ml/libc-alpha/2014-09/msg00679.html>.)
> 
> 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.

Cheers,
Carlos.