Re: RESEND [PATCH v2] bsd-user: Add new maintainers

[Peter Maydell]

On Mon, 8 Mar 2021 at 11:16, Philippe Mathieu-Daudé <philmd@redhat.com> wrote:
>
> Hi Peter,
>
> +Markus/Paolo/Laurent/Richard
>
> On 3/8/21 11:24 AM, Peter Maydell wrote:
> > On Mon, 8 Mar 2021 at 10:09, Thomas Huth <thuth@redhat.com> wrote:
> >>
> >> On 07/03/2021 16.56, Warner Losh wrote:
> >>> The FreeBSD project has a number of enhancements to bsd-user. Add myself
> >>> as maintainer and Kyle Evans as a reviewer. Also add our github repo.
> >>>
> >>> Signed-off-by: Warner Losh <imp@bsdimp.com>
> >>> Signed-off-by: Kyle Evans <kevans@freebsd.org>
> >>> Reviewed-by: Thomas Huth <thuth@redhat.com>
> >>> ---
> >>>   MAINTAINERS | 5 ++++-
> >>>   1 file changed, 4 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)
> >>>
> >>> diff --git a/MAINTAINERS b/MAINTAINERS
> >>> index 26c9454823..ec0e935038 100644
> >>> --- a/MAINTAINERS
> >>> +++ b/MAINTAINERS
> >>> @@ -2896,9 +2896,12 @@ F: thunk.c
> >>>   F: accel/tcg/user-exec*.c
> >>>
> >>>   BSD user
> >>> -S: Orphan
> >>> +M: Warner Losh <imp@bsdimp.com>
> >>> +R: Kyle Evans <kevans@freebsd.org>
> >>> +S: Maintained
> >>>   F: bsd-user/
> >>>   F: default-configs/targets/*-bsd-user.mak
> >>> +T: git https://github.com/qemu-bsd-user/qemu-bsd-user bsd-user-rebase-3.1
> >>
> >> BSD is not really my home turf, but since nobody else picked this up and I
> >> plan to send a pull request for a bunch of patches anyway this week, I can
> >> also put it into my queue.
> >
> > Fine with me. (The v1 was in my to-review queue, but I'm currently
> > running somewhat behind on processing patches.)
>
> This is a patch for mainstream QEMU, I'm having hard time
> understanding the point of it. This is some official way
> to say that BSD-user is not maintained in mainstream but
> has to be used in the referred fork which is way different
> that mainstream...
>
> I'd rather wait for more mainstream contributions from Warner
> and Kyle, or blow the current orphan/dead code and import
> bsd-user-rebase-3.1 adding the maintainer entries along, but
> certainly not mark this dead code as maintained.

I guess it depends what the intention is here. If the idea is
that now Warner and Kyle will look at patches that come in to
the existing bsd-user/ code in mainline, then that counts as
maintained. If they don't want to do that, then maybe we should
wait until we actually have something in mainline that they want
to maintain.

I think I agree with you about not referring to the out-of-tree
3.1-based fork; that's not relevant to upstream.

thanks
-- PMM