This is the mail archive of the
libc-alpha@sourceware.org
mailing list for the glibc project.
Re: Clean up state on patchwork
- From: ricaljasan <ricaljasan at pacific dot net>
- To: Joseph Myers <joseph at codesourcery dot com>
- Cc: "Carlos O'Donell" <carlos at redhat dot com>, Siddhesh Poyarekar <sid at reserved-bit dot com>, libc-alpha at sourceware dot org, Florian Weimer <fweimer at redhat dot com>, vapier at gentoo dot org
- Date: Mon, 28 Sep 2015 20:03:41 -0700
- Subject: Re: Clean up state on patchwork
- Authentication-results: sourceware.org; auth=none
- References: <56097AB6 dot 9040206 at redhat dot com> <5609E687 dot 4060405 at pacific dot net> <alpine dot DEB dot 2 dot 10 dot 1509290147530 dot 18246 at digraph dot polyomino dot org dot uk>
On 09/28/2015 07:00 PM, Joseph Myers wrote:
> On Mon, 28 Sep 2015, ricaljasan wrote:
>
>> So now I'm curious: what does it take to be a qualified reviewer? I see
>> quite a bit of information in:
>>
>> https://sourceware.org/glibc/wiki/HomePage#Development
>>
>> but it seems to be directed at contributors and maintainers. Is
>> "reviewer" synonymous with "maintainer" in the current thread's context?
> Anyone can review patches,
I guess that goes without saying, seeing as how they're publicly
viewable. ;)
> without needing to be a subsystem maintainer,
> to have write access, or to have a copyright assignment. If familiar with
> glibc coding standards and patch requirements, and with a good
> understanding of the limits of one's expertise and which sorts of changes
> may require more thorough consideration, one's reviews may contribute to
> the formation of consensus on patches, individually or together with
> reviews from other people.
Gotcha. A vote of confidence, at least, signifying somebody out there
looked at the damn thing.
> I'd still like to have more people become maintainers in particular areas
> through working through and fixing open bugs in those areas, reviewing
> patches others post and ultimately becoming sufficiently clearly expert in
> those areas to get consensus for being listed as maintainers. (Though we
> also need people working through and fixing bugs and reviewing patches in
> the catch-all "libc" area, which has more open bugs than any other
> component, and is less suited to such maintainership.)
Glad to hear there's a way to work up from the bottom, without needing a
PhD, cuz I'm much more interested in helping glibc in the long-term than
chasing that paper. I've got enough to read in my spare time, and more
still that I want to do.
Rical