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 06:58:29 -0500
From:   "Michael S. Tsirkin" <mst@redhat.com>
To:     Viresh Kumar <viresh.kumar@linaro.org>
Cc:     Wolfram Sang <wsa@kernel.org>, 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: <20221214065417-mutt-send-email-mst@kernel.org>
References: <20221214053631.3225164-1-conghui.chen@intel.com>
 <20221214063107.fazrfq3n26hw4ndl@vireshk-i7>
 <Y5mjcuCRP45ynJis@shikoro>
 <20221214105642.3xagckvbbgu5mubl@vireshk-i7>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <20221214105642.3xagckvbbgu5mubl@vireshk-i7>
Precedence: bulk

On Wed, Dec 14, 2022 at 04:26:42PM +0530, Viresh Kumar wrote:
> 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>

If a maintainer acks a patch I generally expect that the patch is good.
If we have a maintainer who's not familiar with the codebase, this
assumption does not hold.
R: would be ok with me.

> -- 
> viresh