Virtualization - Nov 2021 - [PATCH 2/2] MAINTAINERS: Mark VMware mailing list entries as private

On Mon, 2021-11-08 at 16:22 -0800, Srivatsa S. Bhat
wrote:
> +Greg, Thomas
> 
> Hi Joe,
> 
> On 11/8/21 3:37 PM, Joe Perches wrote:
> > On Mon, 2021-11-08 at 12:30 -0800, Srivatsa S. Bhat wrote:
> > > From: Srivatsa S. Bhat (VMware) <srivatsa at csail.mit.edu>
> > > 
> > > VMware mailing lists in the MAINTAINERS file are private lists
meant
> > > for VMware-internal review/notification for patches to the
respective
> > > subsystems. So, in an earlier discussion [1][2], it was
recommended to
> > > mark them as such. Update all the remaining VMware mailing list
> > > references to use that format -- "L: list at address
(private)".
> > []
> > > diff --git a/MAINTAINERS b/MAINTAINERS
> > []
> > > @@ -6134,8 +6134,8 @@ T:	git
git://anongit.freedesktop.org/drm/drm-misc
> > >  F:	drivers/gpu/drm/vboxvideo/
> > >  
> > >  DRM DRIVER FOR VMWARE VIRTUAL GPU
> > > -M:	"VMware Graphics" <linux-graphics-maintainer at
vmware.com>
> > >  M:	Zack Rusin <zackr at vmware.com>
> > > +L:	linux-graphics-maintainer at vmware.com (private)
> > 
> > This MAINTAINERS file is for _public_ use, marking something
> > non-public isn't useful.
> > 
> > private makes no sense and likely these L: entries shouldn't
exist.
> 
> Well, the public can send messages to this list, but membership is
> restricted.
Ah, new information.
That's not quite what the commit message describes.
 
> In many ways, I believe this is similar to x86 at kernel.org, which is an
> email alias that anyone can post to in order to reach the x86
> maintainer community for patch review. I see x86 at kernel.org listed as
> both L: and M: in the MAINTAINERS file, among different entries.
> 
> Although the @vmware list ids refer to VMware-internal mailing lists
> as opposed to email aliases, they serve a very similar purpose -- to
> inform VMware folks about patches to the relevant subsystems.
> 
> Is there a consensus on how such lists should be specified?
Not so far as I know.
> One
> suggestion (from Greg in the email thread referenced above) was to
> mark it as private, which is what this patch does. Maybe we can find a
> better alternative?
> 
> How about specifying such lists using M: (indicating that this address
> can be used to reach maintainers), as long as that is not the only M:
> entry for a given subsystem (i.e., it includes real people's email id
> as well)? I think that would address Greg's primary objection too from
> that other thread (related to personal responsibility as maintainers).
So it's an exploder not an actual maintainer and it likely isn't
publically archived with any normal list mechanism.

So IMO "private" isn't appropriate.  Neither is "L:"
Perhaps just mark it as what it is as an "exploder".

Or maybe these blocks should be similar to:

M:	Name of Lead Developer <somebody at vmware.com>
M:	VMware <foo> maintainers <linux-<foo>-maintainers at
vmlinux.com>

Maybe something like a comment mechanism should be added to the
MAINTAINERS file.

Maybe #

so this entry could be something like:

M:	VMware <foo> maintainers <linux-<foo>-maintainers at
vmlinux.com> # VMware's ever changing internal maintainers list

> On Nov 8, 2021, at 4:37 PM, Joe Perches <joe at perches.com> wrote:
> 
> On Mon, 2021-11-08 at 16:22 -0800, Srivatsa S. Bhat wrote:
> 
> So it's an exploder not an actual maintainer and it likely isn't
> publically archived with any normal list mechanism.
> 
> So IMO "private" isn't appropriate.  Neither is
"L:"
> Perhaps just mark it as what it is as an "exploder".
> 
> Or maybe these blocks should be similar to:
> 
> M:	Name of Lead Developer <somebody at vmware.com>
> M:	VMware <foo> maintainers <linux-<foo>-maintainers at
vmlinux.com>
> 
> Maybe something like a comment mechanism should be added to the
> MAINTAINERS file.
> 
> Maybe #
> 
> so this entry could be something like:
> 
> M:	VMware <foo> maintainers <linux-<foo>-maintainers at
vmlinux.com> # VMware's ever changing internal maintainers list
Admittedly, I do not care much about how it turns to be.

But if it is modified, it should be very clear who the maintainer
is, and not to entangle the mailing list and the maintainer.

I am personally not subscribed to the internal pv-drivers mailing
list, which is not just for memory ballooning, and is also listed
as a maintainer for vmmouse, pvscsi, vmxnet3 and others.

As I am the only maintainer of VMware balloon, if someone is
mistaken and sends an email only to the mailing list and not me,
he might be disappointed.