Subject: Re: [PATCH docs v2] docs: maintainer: document expectations of small time maintainers

From: Benjamin Poirier <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 18 Jul 2023 15:19:13 -0400

On 2023-07-18 08:58 -0700, Jakub Kicinski wrote:
[...]
> +Reviews
> +-------
> +
> +Maintainers must review *all* patches touching exclusively their drivers,
> +no matter how trivial. If the patch is a tree wide change and modifies
> +multiple drivers - whether to provide a review is left to the maintainer.
> +
> +There should be multiple maintainers for any piece of code, an ``Acked-by``
> +or ``Reviewed-by`` tag (or review comments) from a single maintainer is
> +enough to satisfy this requirement.

This sentence seems strange. Were the first two words swapped?

Given the latter part of the document which recommends to have multiple
maintainers, maybe this sentence could begin with "When there are
multiple maintainers for a piece of code". That sounds less speculative.

[...]
> +Non compliance
> +==============
> +
> +Subsystem maintainers may remove inactive maintainers from the MAINTAINERS
> +file. If the maintainer was a significant author or have played an important
> +role in the development of the code they should be moved to the CREDITS file.

         If the maintainer was a significant author or played an important
   role in the development of the code, they should be moved to the CREDITS file.