[PATCH] MAINTAINERS: update TXT section

Jan Beulich posted 1 patch 2 years, 3 months ago
Test gitlab-ci passed
Patches applied successfully (tree, apply log)
git fetch https://gitlab.com/xen-project/patchew/xen tags/patchew/8334f9e5-bee3-8090-595d-1d45c9af0eb0@suse.com
There is a newer version of this series
[PATCH] MAINTAINERS: update TXT section
Posted by Jan Beulich 2 years, 3 months ago
Since mail to Lukasz'es address has been bouncing, Intel have suggested
replacement contacts.

Signed-off-by: Jan Beulich <jbeulich@suse.com>
---
To be frank, I'm not fully convinced of the M: - I'd instead see us use
R: for both just like we had it for Lukasz.

--- a/MAINTAINERS
+++ b/MAINTAINERS
@@ -316,7 +316,8 @@ F:	xen/common/hypfs.c
 F:	xen/include/xen/hypfs.h
 
 INTEL(R) TRUSTED EXECUTION TECHNOLOGY (TXT)
-R:	Lukasz Hawrylko <lukasz.hawrylko@linux.intel.com>
+M:	Mateusz Mówka <mateusz.mowka@intel.com>
+R:	Paweł Randzio <pawel.randzio@intel.com>
 S:	Odd Fixes
 F:	xen/arch/x86/include/asm/tboot.h
 F:	xen/arch/x86/tboot.c


Re: [PATCH] MAINTAINERS: update TXT section
Posted by Roger Pau Monné 2 years, 3 months ago
On Tue, Dec 21, 2021 at 10:06:37AM +0100, Jan Beulich wrote:
> Since mail to Lukasz'es address has been bouncing, Intel have suggested
> replacement contacts.
> 
> Signed-off-by: Jan Beulich <jbeulich@suse.com>
> ---
> To be frank, I'm not fully convinced of the M: - I'd instead see us use
> R: for both just like we had it for Lukasz.

I assume it was Intel then to explicitly request for Maintainer
status?

I'm fine with either M or R, albeit I agree R might be more natural
since there's no track of record in xen-devel of any reviews AFAICT.

Acked-by: Roger Pau Monné <roger.pau@citrix.com>

Thanks.