Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 2620:137:e000::1:20 as permitted sender) client-ip=2620:137:e000::1:20;
Date:   Wed, 14 Dec 2022 16:26:42 +0530
From:   Viresh Kumar <viresh.kumar@linaro.org>
To:     Wolfram Sang <wsa@kernel.org>, mst@redhat.com, asowang@redhat.com,
        Conghui <conghui.chen@intel.com>, linux-i2c@vger.kernel.org,
        virtualization@lists.linux-foundation.org,
        linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org,
        Jian Jun Chen <jian.jun.chen@intel.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] MAINTAINERS: Update maintainer list for virtio i2c
Message-ID: <20221214105642.3xagckvbbgu5mubl@vireshk-i7>
References: <20221214053631.3225164-1-conghui.chen@intel.com>
 <20221214063107.fazrfq3n26hw4ndl@vireshk-i7>
 <Y5mjcuCRP45ynJis@shikoro>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <Y5mjcuCRP45ynJis@shikoro>
Precedence: bulk

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@linaro.org>

-- 
viresh