This is the mail archive of the
libc-alpha@sourceware.org
mailing list for the glibc project.
Re: Subsystem maintainers
- From: Torvald Riegel <triegel at redhat dot com>
- To: Thomas Schwinge <thomas at codesourcery dot com>
- Cc: "Carlos O'Donell" <carlos at redhat dot com>, "Joseph S. Myers" <joseph at codesourcery dot com>, libc-alpha at sourceware dot org
- Date: Wed, 08 Oct 2014 12:31:41 +0200
- Subject: Re: Subsystem maintainers
- Authentication-results: sourceware.org; auth=none
- References: <Pine dot LNX dot 4 dot 64 dot 1409232040060 dot 8132 at digraph dot polyomino dot org dot uk> <Pine dot LNX dot 4 dot 64 dot 1409301439570 dot 15186 at digraph dot polyomino dot org dot uk> <542AC26E dot 5070906 at redhat dot com> <Pine dot LNX dot 4 dot 64 dot 1410071615260 dot 28196 at digraph dot polyomino dot org dot uk> <54342BE2 dot 6000006 at redhat dot com> <1412711085 dot 30642 dot 122 dot camel at triegel dot csb> <87bnpmrivo dot fsf at kepler dot schwinge dot homeip dot net>
On Wed, 2014-10-08 at 11:49 +0200, Thomas Schwinge wrote:
> 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>.
Or add the additional column for "component owners".
We might also want to not just base this on components, but other
cross-cutting things like "security". For example, I'd be happy to
review everything related to concurrency.