* [PATCH v3 0/1] Expand get_maintainer to be explicit about supporters @ 2022-09-30 6:46 Bryan O'Donoghue 2022-09-30 6:46 ` [PATCH v3] Documentation/process: Add text to indicate supporters should be mailed Bryan O'Donoghue 0 siblings, 1 reply; 15+ messages in thread From: Bryan O'Donoghue @ 2022-09-30 6:46 UTC (permalink / raw) To: corbet, linux, konstantin, krzysztof.kozlowski, tytso, linux-doc Cc: linux-kernel, Bryan O'Donoghue V3: - Drops change to get_maintainer.pl - Theodore - Rewords around `get_maintainer --nogit-fallback` and gives an example I think the document text now is clearer and should be more helpful to others in getting their minimum submission list right every time. V2: https://lore.kernel.org/lkml/20220928003006.230103-1-bryan.odonoghue@linaro.org/T/#u - Documentation/process Added in text to also make clear subsystem mailing list should be included - Krzysztof - Changed get_maintainer.pl to print maintainer[supporter] or maintainer[volunteer] depending on MAINTAINERS file. - Thorsten/Bryan - Choose supporter and volunteer instead of supported and volunteer Supporter and volunteer describe the role of the person whereas supported and volunteer would describe an activity and a role which isn't consistent. - Thorsten/Bryan - I didn't change Documentation/process/5.Posting.rst This file doesn't mention get_maintainer.pl and I was mostly aiming to fixup the process around get_maintainer.pl. - Thorsten - Myself and Thorsten discussed changing get_maintainer.pl, how it seems like a desirable thing to do but also that "it might break scripts for people" and it might. I don't know if get_maintainer.pl is or should be considered to be a stable interface and an explicit software contract but, making it clear a supporter is also a maintainer seems like the right thing to do from a transmission of information perspective. There is still the option of just updating Documentation/process in isolation. V1: - Sent a standalone change to Documentation/process stating get_maintainer.pl email addresses marked "supporter" should be included in a patch run. Bryan O'Donoghue (1): Documentation/process: Add text to indicate supporters should be mailed Documentation/process/submitting-patches.rst | 12 +++++++++--- 1 file changed, 9 insertions(+), 3 deletions(-) -- 2.37.3 ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 15+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v3] Documentation/process: Add text to indicate supporters should be mailed 2022-09-30 6:46 [PATCH v3 0/1] Expand get_maintainer to be explicit about supporters Bryan O'Donoghue @ 2022-09-30 6:46 ` Bryan O'Donoghue 2022-09-30 14:47 ` Akira Yokosawa 0 siblings, 1 reply; 15+ messages in thread From: Bryan O'Donoghue @ 2022-09-30 6:46 UTC (permalink / raw) To: corbet, linux, konstantin, krzysztof.kozlowski, tytso, linux-doc Cc: linux-kernel, Bryan O'Donoghue Recently when submitting a yaml change I found that I had omitted the maintainer whose tree the change needed to go through. The reason for that is the path in MAINTAINERS is marked as Supported not Maintained. Reading MAINTAINERS we see quote: Supported: Someone is actually paid to look after this. Maintained: Someone actually looks after it. The current submitting-patches.rst only says to mail maintainers though not supporters. When we run scripts/get_maintainer.pl anybody who is denoted a paid maintainer will appear as a supporter. Add text to state that every mail address returned by get_maintainer.pl --nogit-fallback should be included when submitting a patch, giving an example of the same. Signed-off-by: Bryan O'Donoghue <bryan.odonoghue@linaro.org> --- Documentation/process/submitting-patches.rst | 12 +++++++++--- 1 file changed, 9 insertions(+), 3 deletions(-) diff --git a/Documentation/process/submitting-patches.rst b/Documentation/process/submitting-patches.rst index be49d8f2601b4..18a1f52e0563a 100644 --- a/Documentation/process/submitting-patches.rst +++ b/Documentation/process/submitting-patches.rst @@ -227,9 +227,15 @@ You should always copy the appropriate subsystem maintainer(s) on any patch to code that they maintain; look through the MAINTAINERS file and the source code revision history to see who those maintainers are. The script scripts/get_maintainer.pl can be very useful at this step (pass paths to -your patches as arguments to scripts/get_maintainer.pl). If you cannot find a -maintainer for the subsystem you are working on, Andrew Morton -(akpm@linux-foundation.org) serves as a maintainer of last resort. +your patches as arguments to scripts/get_maintainer.pl). You should mail every +email address returned by `scripts/get_maintainer.pl --nogit-fallback` when +submitting a patch. +For example:: + + $ scripts/get_maintainer.pl --nogit-fallback -f submitting-patches.rst + Jonathan Corbet <corbet@lwn.net> (maintainer:DOCUMENTATION) + linux-doc@vger.kernel.org (open list:DOCUMENTATION) + linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org (open list) You should also normally choose at least one mailing list to receive a copy of your patch set. linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org should be used by default -- 2.37.3 ^ permalink raw reply related [flat|nested] 15+ messages in thread
* Re: [PATCH v3] Documentation/process: Add text to indicate supporters should be mailed 2022-09-30 6:46 ` [PATCH v3] Documentation/process: Add text to indicate supporters should be mailed Bryan O'Donoghue @ 2022-09-30 14:47 ` Akira Yokosawa 2022-09-30 16:18 ` Bryan O'Donoghue 2022-09-30 18:41 ` Bryan O'Donoghue 0 siblings, 2 replies; 15+ messages in thread From: Akira Yokosawa @ 2022-09-30 14:47 UTC (permalink / raw) To: Bryan O'Donoghue Cc: corbet, konstantin, krzysztof.kozlowski, linux-doc, linux-kernel, linux, tytso, Akira Yokosawa Hi, On Fri, 30 Sep 2022 07:46:29 +0100, Bryan O'Donoghue wrote: > Recently when submitting a yaml change I found that I had omitted the > maintainer whose tree the change needed to go through. > > The reason for that is the path in MAINTAINERS is marked as Supported not > Maintained. Reading MAINTAINERS we see quote: > > Supported: Someone is actually paid to look after this. > Maintained: Someone actually looks after it. > > The current submitting-patches.rst only says to mail maintainers though not > supporters. When we run scripts/get_maintainer.pl anybody who is denoted a > paid maintainer will appear as a supporter. So the root cause of your confusion was you couldn't figure out the fact that "supporter" in the output of get_maintainver.pl means "maintainer of a supported subsystem", wasn't it? I guess all you need would be just a short notice along the lines of: "supporter" in the output from get_maintainer.pl means "maintainer of a supported subsystem". No? > > Add text to state that every mail address returned by get_maintainer.pl > --nogit-fallback should be included when submitting a patch, giving an > example of the same.> > Signed-off-by: Bryan O'Donoghue <bryan.odonoghue@linaro.org> > --- > Documentation/process/submitting-patches.rst | 12 +++++++++--- > 1 file changed, 9 insertions(+), 3 deletions(-) > > diff --git a/Documentation/process/submitting-patches.rst b/Documentation/process/submitting-patches.rst > index be49d8f2601b4..18a1f52e0563a 100644 > --- a/Documentation/process/submitting-patches.rst > +++ b/Documentation/process/submitting-patches.rst > @@ -227,9 +227,15 @@ You should always copy the appropriate subsystem maintainer(s) on any patch > to code that they maintain; look through the MAINTAINERS file and the > source code revision history to see who those maintainers are. The > script scripts/get_maintainer.pl can be very useful at this step (pass paths to > -your patches as arguments to scripts/get_maintainer.pl). If you cannot find a > -maintainer for the subsystem you are working on, Andrew Morton > -(akpm@linux-foundation.org) serves as a maintainer of last resort. > +your patches as arguments to scripts/get_maintainer.pl). You should mail every > +email address returned by `scripts/get_maintainer.pl --nogit-fallback` when > +submitting a patch. > +For example:: > + > + $ scripts/get_maintainer.pl --nogit-fallback -f submitting-patches.rst > + Jonathan Corbet <corbet@lwn.net> (maintainer:DOCUMENTATION) > + linux-doc@vger.kernel.org (open list:DOCUMENTATION) > + linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org (open list) This example has a number of issues... 1) The command line doesn't work when run under the top of kernel tree. 2) The -f flag contradicts the instruction above: (pass paths to your *patches* as arguments to scripts/get_maintainer.pl). 3) There can be cases where --git-fallback (default) is useful. 4) The output can change any time. 5) There is no point in using Jon's actual name and email address. Why not just add a short notice I mentioned above as a first step? Please take your time before sending out v4 to make sure your change will improve things. Regards, Akira > > You should also normally choose at least one mailing list to receive a copy > of your patch set. linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org should be used by default ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 15+ messages in thread
* Re: [PATCH v3] Documentation/process: Add text to indicate supporters should be mailed 2022-09-30 14:47 ` Akira Yokosawa @ 2022-09-30 16:18 ` Bryan O'Donoghue 2022-09-30 16:34 ` Bryan O'Donoghue 2022-10-01 2:37 ` Theodore Ts'o 2022-09-30 18:41 ` Bryan O'Donoghue 1 sibling, 2 replies; 15+ messages in thread From: Bryan O'Donoghue @ 2022-09-30 16:18 UTC (permalink / raw) To: Akira Yokosawa Cc: corbet, konstantin, krzysztof.kozlowski, linux-doc, linux-kernel, linux, tytso On 30/09/2022 15:47, Akira Yokosawa wrote: > Hi, > > On Fri, 30 Sep 2022 07:46:29 +0100, Bryan O'Donoghue wrote: >> Recently when submitting a yaml change I found that I had omitted the >> maintainer whose tree the change needed to go through. >> >> The reason for that is the path in MAINTAINERS is marked as Supported not >> Maintained. Reading MAINTAINERS we see quote: >> >> Supported: Someone is actually paid to look after this. >> Maintained: Someone actually looks after it. >> >> The current submitting-patches.rst only says to mail maintainers though not >> supporters. When we run scripts/get_maintainer.pl anybody who is denoted a >> paid maintainer will appear as a supporter. > > So the root cause of your confusion was you couldn't figure out > the fact that "supporter" in the output of get_maintainver.pl means > "maintainer of a supported subsystem", wasn't it? > > I guess all you need would be just a short notice along the lines of: > > "supporter" in the output from get_maintainer.pl means "maintainer > of a supported subsystem". > > No? We discussed that a bit earlier. https://lore.kernel.org/lkml/20220928003006.230103-1-bryan.odonoghue@linaro.org/T/#u https://lkml.org/lkml/2022/9/28/1394 https://lkml.org/lkml/2022/9/28/1511 https://lkml.org/lkml/2022/9/29/188 I think its fair to say the consensus so far is to leave the get_maintainer.pl output as is. >> >> Add text to state that every mail address returned by get_maintainer.pl >> --nogit-fallback should be included when submitting a patch, giving an >> example of the same.> >> Signed-off-by: Bryan O'Donoghue <bryan.odonoghue@linaro.org> >> --- >> Documentation/process/submitting-patches.rst | 12 +++++++++--- >> 1 file changed, 9 insertions(+), 3 deletions(-) >> >> diff --git a/Documentation/process/submitting-patches.rst b/Documentation/process/submitting-patches.rst >> index be49d8f2601b4..18a1f52e0563a 100644 >> --- a/Documentation/process/submitting-patches.rst >> +++ b/Documentation/process/submitting-patches.rst >> @@ -227,9 +227,15 @@ You should always copy the appropriate subsystem maintainer(s) on any patch >> to code that they maintain; look through the MAINTAINERS file and the >> source code revision history to see who those maintainers are. The >> script scripts/get_maintainer.pl can be very useful at this step (pass paths to >> -your patches as arguments to scripts/get_maintainer.pl). If you cannot find a >> -maintainer for the subsystem you are working on, Andrew Morton >> -(akpm@linux-foundation.org) serves as a maintainer of last resort. >> +your patches as arguments to scripts/get_maintainer.pl). You should mail every >> +email address returned by `scripts/get_maintainer.pl --nogit-fallback` when >> +submitting a patch. >> +For example:: >> + >> + $ scripts/get_maintainer.pl --nogit-fallback -f submitting-patches.rst >> + Jonathan Corbet <corbet@lwn.net> (maintainer:DOCUMENTATION) >> + linux-doc@vger.kernel.org (open list:DOCUMENTATION) >> + linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org (open list) > > This example has a number of issues... > > 1) The command line doesn't work when run under the top of kernel tree. Well I didn't want to exceed 80 characters but I have no problem make it top level explicit > 2) The -f flag contradicts the instruction above: > (pass paths to your *patches* as arguments to scripts/get_maintainer.pl). I'm not sure I follow how it contradicts but, I will read it again. > 3) There can be cases where --git-fallback (default) is useful. Can you elaborate what your thinking is on that. I'm happy to try to include it in the instructions we give. > 4) The output can change any time. What does this mean ? The output won't change for a given patch you are trying to send. Do you mean the output of get_maintainer.pl can change ? It could but, how does that negate the value of documenting what it does right now ? > 5) There is no point in using Jon's actual name and email address. Sure, I see your point. I'll use a fake email. > Why not just add a short notice I mentioned above as a first step? Please see above. --- bod ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 15+ messages in thread
* Re: [PATCH v3] Documentation/process: Add text to indicate supporters should be mailed 2022-09-30 16:18 ` Bryan O'Donoghue @ 2022-09-30 16:34 ` Bryan O'Donoghue 2022-10-01 2:37 ` Theodore Ts'o 1 sibling, 0 replies; 15+ messages in thread From: Bryan O'Donoghue @ 2022-09-30 16:34 UTC (permalink / raw) To: Akira Yokosawa Cc: corbet, konstantin, krzysztof.kozlowski, linux-doc, linux-kernel, linux, tytso On 30/09/2022 17:18, Bryan O'Donoghue wrote: > I guess all you need would be just a short notice along the lines of: > > "supporter" in the output from get_maintainer.pl means "maintainer > of a supported subsystem". > > No? Ah I see you are suggesting a document not a get_maintainer.pl edit, my mistake. Yes, I'm fine to change the text to something like this if you feel it reads better that way. I'd still appreciate some more eloboration/rationale on what you don't like about giving an example. Is it the example in general you dislike ? Personally I find an example a useful thing but, that's just a personal preference. --- bod ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 15+ messages in thread
* Re: [PATCH v3] Documentation/process: Add text to indicate supporters should be mailed 2022-09-30 16:18 ` Bryan O'Donoghue 2022-09-30 16:34 ` Bryan O'Donoghue @ 2022-10-01 2:37 ` Theodore Ts'o 2022-10-01 10:37 ` Bryan O'Donoghue 1 sibling, 1 reply; 15+ messages in thread From: Theodore Ts'o @ 2022-10-01 2:37 UTC (permalink / raw) To: Bryan O'Donoghue Cc: Akira Yokosawa, corbet, konstantin, krzysztof.kozlowski, linux-doc, linux-kernel, linux On Fri, Sep 30, 2022 at 05:18:52PM +0100, Bryan O'Donoghue wrote: > > So the root cause of your confusion was you couldn't figure out > > the fact that "supporter" in the output of get_maintainver.pl means > > "maintainer of a supported subsystem", wasn't it? > > > > I guess all you need would be just a short notice along the lines of: > > > > "supporter" in the output from get_maintainer.pl means "maintainer > > of a supported subsystem". > > > > No? > > We discussed that a bit earlier. > > https://lore.kernel.org/lkml/20220928003006.230103-1-bryan.odonoghue@linaro.org/T/#u > https://lkml.org/lkml/2022/9/28/1394 > https://lkml.org/lkml/2022/9/28/1511 > https://lkml.org/lkml/2022/9/29/188 > > I think its fair to say the consensus so far is to leave the > get_maintainer.pl output as is. FWIW, I actually think the output of get_maintainer.pl is pretty broken in this regard. (Then again, I've never thought all that highly of get_maintainer.pl, *especially* because of the bogus git fallback, but that's another story.) Consider: % ./scripts/get_maintainer.pl --file drivers/acpi/power.c "Rafael J. Wysocki" <rafael@kernel.org> (supporter:ACPI) Len Brown <lenb@kernel.org> (reviewer:ACPI) linux-acpi@vger.kernel.org (open list:ACPI) linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org (open list) I'm sorry, but that's just *wrong*. Rafael is the *maintainer* of the ACPI subsystem, and the term "supporter" is rarely if ever used anywhere in our docs. As I said earlier, trying to treat S: field to say anything about the entitles listed under the M: field of the Maintainers file is a category error. Consider: ACPI subsystem is is "supported". From a user's perspective, what are they supposed to take from that? That the ACPI subsystem is somehow better supported than say, the MM subsystem (which is only "maintained"), or all of Linux networking, which is also "maintained". And so Rafel is a "supporter", but David Miller and Andrew Morton are "maintainers", respectively. ?!? I think the original rationale behind the S: field is to help people understand, in particular for device drivers, how solid a particular device driver might be. Was it officially supported by the hardware manufacturer? Was it supported by a some random student who hacked something together? Was the still being actively maintained? But even then, just because a driver is "officially" supported by the hardware manufacturer doesn't necessarily mean that it is any more reliable, or high quality, than something which is being supported by someone who supposedly isn't getting paid to support it. (And there are plenty of subsystems listed as "maintained" where the people listed under M: are most certainly getting paid to work on it.) - Ted ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 15+ messages in thread
* Re: [PATCH v3] Documentation/process: Add text to indicate supporters should be mailed 2022-10-01 2:37 ` Theodore Ts'o @ 2022-10-01 10:37 ` Bryan O'Donoghue 2022-10-02 0:27 ` Akira Yokosawa 2022-10-02 7:58 ` Krzysztof Kozlowski 0 siblings, 2 replies; 15+ messages in thread From: Bryan O'Donoghue @ 2022-10-01 10:37 UTC (permalink / raw) To: Theodore Ts'o Cc: Akira Yokosawa, corbet, konstantin, krzysztof.kozlowski, linux-doc, linux-kernel, linux On 01/10/2022 03:37, Theodore Ts'o wrote: > FWIW, I actually think the output of get_maintainer.pl is pretty > broken in this regard. (Then again, I've never thought all that > highly of get_maintainer.pl,*especially* because of the bogus git > fallback, but that's another story.) > > Consider: > > % ./scripts/get_maintainer.pl --file drivers/acpi/power.c > "Rafael J. Wysocki"<rafael@kernel.org> (supporter:ACPI) > Len Brown<lenb@kernel.org> (reviewer:ACPI) > linux-acpi@vger.kernel.org (open list:ACPI) > linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org (open list) > > I'm sorry, but that's just*wrong*. Rafael is the*maintainer* of the > ACPI subsystem, and the term "supporter" is rarely if ever used > anywhere in our docs. As I said earlier, trying to treat S: field to > say anything about the entitles listed under the M: field of the > Maintainers file is a category error. I agree, I made exactly this error. I wasn't sure how people would necessarily feel about having get_maintainer produce the string 'maintainer' for both Maintained and Supported but, IMO it is more consistent to have it do so, since we refer to maintainers all throughout the doucmentation and as you say above Rafael is the person you *need* to mail there because he's the maintainer. Lets consider - maintainer as a string for "S: Supported" - Documentation update to reflect Krzysztof's point on git-fallback --- bod ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 15+ messages in thread
* Re: [PATCH v3] Documentation/process: Add text to indicate supporters should be mailed 2022-10-01 10:37 ` Bryan O'Donoghue @ 2022-10-02 0:27 ` Akira Yokosawa 2022-10-02 7:58 ` Krzysztof Kozlowski 1 sibling, 0 replies; 15+ messages in thread From: Akira Yokosawa @ 2022-10-02 0:27 UTC (permalink / raw) To: Bryan O'Donoghue Cc: corbet, konstantin, krzysztof.kozlowski, linux-doc, linux-kernel, linux, Theodore Ts'o On Sat, 1 Oct 2022 11:37:03 +0100, Bryan O'Donoghue wrote: > On 01/10/2022 03:37, Theodore Ts'o wrote: >> FWIW, I actually think the output of get_maintainer.pl is pretty >> broken in this regard. (Then again, I've never thought all that >> highly of get_maintainer.pl,*especially* because of the bogus git >> fallback, but that's another story.) >> >> Consider: >> >> % ./scripts/get_maintainer.pl --file drivers/acpi/power.c >> "Rafael J. Wysocki"<rafael@kernel.org> (supporter:ACPI) >> Len Brown<lenb@kernel.org> (reviewer:ACPI) >> linux-acpi@vger.kernel.org (open list:ACPI) >> linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org (open list) >> >> I'm sorry, but that's just*wrong*. Rafael is the*maintainer* of the >> ACPI subsystem, and the term "supporter" is rarely if ever used >> anywhere in our docs. As I said earlier, trying to treat S: field to >> say anything about the entitles listed under the M: field of the >> Maintainers file is a category error. > > I agree, I made exactly this error. > > I wasn't sure how people would necessarily feel about having > get_maintainer produce the string 'maintainer' for both Maintained and > Supported but, IMO it is more consistent to have it do so, since we refer > to maintainers all throughout the doucmentation and as you say above Rafael > is the person you *need* to mail there because he's the maintainer. You'd better CC Joe Perches, who is the maintainer of get_maintainer.pl. You might want to start a new thread with a different subject. The main point becomes the behavior of get_maintainer.pl. > > Lets consider > > - maintainer as a string for "S: Supported" > - Documentation update to reflect Krzysztof's point on git-fallback Sounds reasonable to me. Good luck! Thanks, Akira > > --- > bod ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 15+ messages in thread
* Re: [PATCH v3] Documentation/process: Add text to indicate supporters should be mailed 2022-10-01 10:37 ` Bryan O'Donoghue 2022-10-02 0:27 ` Akira Yokosawa @ 2022-10-02 7:58 ` Krzysztof Kozlowski 2022-10-02 15:49 ` Joe Perches 1 sibling, 1 reply; 15+ messages in thread From: Krzysztof Kozlowski @ 2022-10-02 7:58 UTC (permalink / raw) To: Bryan O'Donoghue, Theodore Ts'o Cc: Akira Yokosawa, corbet, konstantin, linux-doc, linux-kernel, linux On 01/10/2022 12:37, Bryan O'Donoghue wrote: > > I wasn't sure how people would necessarily feel about having > get_maintainer produce the string 'maintainer' for both Maintained and > Supported but, IMO it is more consistent to have it do so, since we > refer to maintainers all throughout the doucmentation and as you say > above Rafael is the person you *need* to mail there because he's the > maintainer. > > Lets consider > > - maintainer as a string for "S: Supported" > - Documentation update to reflect Krzysztof's point on git-fallback Just to clarify my point - one can use git-fallback. The expectation is however that submitter CCs all specifically assigned addresses from maintainers, this is: - all maintainers - all maintainers-supporters - all reviewers - all dedicated mailing lists - LKML if there is no dedicated mailing list. The easiest to achieve it is to run with --no-git-fallback and CC entire output. However it does not mean submitter must run with --no-git-fallback. It is only for this generic rule - CC entire output of get_maintainers.pl. If you add such rule "CC entire output of get_maintainers.pl" and do not mention no-git-fallback, some folks will think they need to CC all these people who made one commit to your file... Best regards, Krzysztof ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 15+ messages in thread
* Re: [PATCH v3] Documentation/process: Add text to indicate supporters should be mailed 2022-10-02 7:58 ` Krzysztof Kozlowski @ 2022-10-02 15:49 ` Joe Perches 2022-10-02 23:04 ` Akira Yokosawa 0 siblings, 1 reply; 15+ messages in thread From: Joe Perches @ 2022-10-02 15:49 UTC (permalink / raw) To: Krzysztof Kozlowski, Bryan O'Donoghue, Theodore Ts'o Cc: Akira Yokosawa, corbet, konstantin, linux-doc, linux-kernel, linux On Sun, 2022-10-02 at 09:58 +0200, Krzysztof Kozlowski wrote: > The easiest to achieve it is to run with --no-git-fallback and CC entire > output. However it does not mean submitter must run with > --no-git-fallback. It is only for this generic rule - CC entire output > of get_maintainers.pl. > > If you add such rule "CC entire output of get_maintainers.pl" and do not > mention no-git-fallback, some folks will think they need to CC all these > people who made one commit to your file... false. git-fallback is _not_ used when there is a listed maintainer for a specific file. If there is a use of git-fallback, it's because there is _no_ specified maintainer for a specific file. --git-fallback => use git when no exact MAINTAINERS pattern (default: 1) i.e.: It's not "your file" if you don't maintain it. ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 15+ messages in thread
* Re: [PATCH v3] Documentation/process: Add text to indicate supporters should be mailed 2022-10-02 15:49 ` Joe Perches @ 2022-10-02 23:04 ` Akira Yokosawa 2022-10-02 23:55 ` Joe Perches 0 siblings, 1 reply; 15+ messages in thread From: Akira Yokosawa @ 2022-10-02 23:04 UTC (permalink / raw) To: Joe Perches Cc: corbet, konstantin, Theodore Ts'o, Bryan O'Donoghue, Krzysztof Kozlowski, linux, linux-doc, linux-kernel, Akira Yokosawa Hello Joe, Thank you for chiming in. On 2022/10/03 0:49, Joe Perches wrote: > On Sun, 2022-10-02 at 09:58 +0200, Krzysztof Kozlowski wrote: >> The easiest to achieve it is to run with --no-git-fallback and CC entire >> output. However it does not mean submitter must run with >> --no-git-fallback. It is only for this generic rule - CC entire output >> of get_maintainers.pl. >> >> If you add such rule "CC entire output of get_maintainers.pl" and do not >> mention no-git-fallback, some folks will think they need to CC all these >> people who made one commit to your file... > > false. > > git-fallback is _not_ used when there is a listed maintainer for a > specific file. > > If there is a use of git-fallback, it's because there is _no_ > specified maintainer for a specific file. > > --git-fallback => use git when no exact MAINTAINERS pattern (default: 1) > > i.e.: It's not "your file" if you don't maintain it. Joe, I sometimes see unexpected output WRT --git-fallback. Example: $ ./get_maintainer.pl -f Documentation/doc-guide/sphinx.rst Jonathan Corbet <corbet@lwn.net> (maintainer:DOCUMENTATION,commit_signer:1/1=100%) <-- ??? Lukas Bulwahn <lukas.bulwahn@gmail.com> (commit_signer:1/1=100%,authored:1/1=100%,added_lines:2/2=100%,removed_lines:2/2=100%) <-- ??? linux-doc@vger.kernel.org (open list:DOCUMENTATION) linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org (open list) As you see, --git-fallback is used in this case. Why? It looks strange to me as Jon is listed as a "maintainer". Having "F: Documentation/" in MAINTAINERS does not suffice? Can you elaborate? Regards, Akira ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 15+ messages in thread
* Re: [PATCH v3] Documentation/process: Add text to indicate supporters should be mailed 2022-10-02 23:04 ` Akira Yokosawa @ 2022-10-02 23:55 ` Joe Perches 2022-10-03 1:17 ` Akira Yokosawa 0 siblings, 1 reply; 15+ messages in thread From: Joe Perches @ 2022-10-02 23:55 UTC (permalink / raw) To: Akira Yokosawa Cc: corbet, konstantin, Theodore Ts'o, Bryan O'Donoghue, Krzysztof Kozlowski, linux, linux-doc, linux-kernel On Mon, 2022-10-03 at 08:04 +0900, Akira Yokosawa wrote: > Hello Joe, > > Thank you for chiming in. > > On 2022/10/03 0:49, Joe Perches wrote: > > On Sun, 2022-10-02 at 09:58 +0200, Krzysztof Kozlowski wrote: > > > The easiest to achieve it is to run with --no-git-fallback and CC entire > > > output. However it does not mean submitter must run with > > > --no-git-fallback. It is only for this generic rule - CC entire output > > > of get_maintainers.pl. > > > > > > If you add such rule "CC entire output of get_maintainers.pl" and do not > > > mention no-git-fallback, some folks will think they need to CC all these > > > people who made one commit to your file... > > > > false. > > > > git-fallback is _not_ used when there is a listed maintainer for a > > specific file. > > > > If there is a use of git-fallback, it's because there is _no_ > > specified maintainer for a specific file. > > > > --git-fallback => use git when no exact MAINTAINERS pattern (default: 1) > > > > i.e.: It's not "your file" if you don't maintain it. > > Joe, I sometimes see unexpected output WRT --git-fallback. > > Example: > > $ ./get_maintainer.pl -f Documentation/doc-guide/sphinx.rst > Jonathan Corbet <corbet@lwn.net> (maintainer:DOCUMENTATION,commit_signer:1/1=100%) > <-- ??? > Lukas Bulwahn <lukas.bulwahn@gmail.com> (commit_signer:1/1=100%,authored:1/1=100%,added_lines:2/2=100%,removed_lines:2/2=100%) > <-- ??? > linux-doc@vger.kernel.org (open list:DOCUMENTATION) > > linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org (open list) > > As you see, --git-fallback is used in this case. Why? > It looks strange to me as Jon is listed as a "maintainer". > > Having "F: Documentation/" in MAINTAINERS does not suffice? No. It's not an exact pattern match as the files below the top level of Documentation are not specifically matched by "F: Documentation/". Just as David Miller is not the direct maintainer for every driver under drivers/net, Jonathan Corbet is not the direct maintainer for every file under Documentation. There are many specific listed maintainer for files under the Documentation directory. Jonathan would be cc'd though on all files in the Documentation directory (save those excluded by X: entries in his section) Anyway, git-fallback is used because of the lack of specific maintainer for many of the files in the Documentation/ tree. $ git ls-files Documentation | \ grep -vP '^(?:Documentation/ABI|Documentation/admin-guide/media|Documentation/devicetree|Documentation/driver-api|Documentation/firmware-guide/acpi|Documentation/i2c|Documentation/power|Documentation/spi|Documentation/userspace-api)' | \ wc -l 2449 Of those ~2.4K files, many are actually maintained by others. Many are not. By running a little script, about half are not directly maintained by anyone. and lastly: Using git-blame on that file, it seems to me that Mauro Carvelo Chehab would be a good recipient too. $ ./scripts/get_maintainer.pl --git-blame Documentation/doc-guide/sphinx.rst Jonathan Corbet <corbet@lwn.net> (maintainer:DOCUMENTATION,commit_signer:8/8=100%,authored:1/8=12%,added_lines:5/42=12%,removed_lines:6/23=26%,modified commits:25/25=100%) Mauro Carvalho Chehab <mchehab+huawei@kernel.org> (commit_signer:4/8=50%,authored:3/8=38%,added_lines:12/42=29%,modified commits:12/25=48%) Akira Yokosawa <akiyks@gmail.com> (commit_signer:3/8=38%,authored:3/8=38%,added_lines:22/42=52%,removed_lines:14/23=61%,modified commits:3/25=12%) Randy Dunlap <rdunlap@infradead.org> (commit_signer:2/8=25%,modified commits:3/25=12%) Bagas Sanjaya <bagasdotme@gmail.com> (commit_signer:1/8=12%,authored:1/8=12%,added_lines:3/42=7%,removed_lines:2/23=9%) Federico Vaga <federico.vaga@vaga.pv.it> (modified commits:2/25=8%) linux-doc@vger.kernel.org (open list:DOCUMENTATION) linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org (open list) ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 15+ messages in thread
* Re: [PATCH v3] Documentation/process: Add text to indicate supporters should be mailed 2022-10-02 23:55 ` Joe Perches @ 2022-10-03 1:17 ` Akira Yokosawa 2022-10-03 1:28 ` Joe Perches 0 siblings, 1 reply; 15+ messages in thread From: Akira Yokosawa @ 2022-10-03 1:17 UTC (permalink / raw) To: Joe Perches Cc: corbet, konstantin, Theodore Ts'o, Bryan O'Donoghue, Krzysztof Kozlowski, linux, linux-doc, linux-kernel On Sun, 02 Oct 2022 16:55:05 -0700, Joe Perches wrote: > On Mon, 2022-10-03 at 08:04 +0900, Akira Yokosawa wrote: >> Hello Joe, >> >> Thank you for chiming in. >> >> On 2022/10/03 0:49, Joe Perches wrote: >>> On Sun, 2022-10-02 at 09:58 +0200, Krzysztof Kozlowski wrote: >>>> The easiest to achieve it is to run with --no-git-fallback and CC entire >>>> output. However it does not mean submitter must run with >>>> --no-git-fallback. It is only for this generic rule - CC entire output >>>> of get_maintainers.pl. >>>> >>>> If you add such rule "CC entire output of get_maintainers.pl" and do not >>>> mention no-git-fallback, some folks will think they need to CC all these >>>> people who made one commit to your file... >>> >>> false. >>> >>> git-fallback is _not_ used when there is a listed maintainer for a >>> specific file. >>> >>> If there is a use of git-fallback, it's because there is _no_ >>> specified maintainer for a specific file. >>> >>> --git-fallback => use git when no exact MAINTAINERS pattern (default: 1) >>> >>> i.e.: It's not "your file" if you don't maintain it. >> >> Joe, I sometimes see unexpected output WRT --git-fallback. >> >> Example: >> >> $ ./get_maintainer.pl -f Documentation/doc-guide/sphinx.rst >> Jonathan Corbet <corbet@lwn.net> (maintainer:DOCUMENTATION,commit_signer:1/1=100%) >> <-- ??? >> Lukas Bulwahn <lukas.bulwahn@gmail.com> (commit_signer:1/1=100%,authored:1/1=100%,added_lines:2/2=100%,removed_lines:2/2=100%) >> <-- ??? >> linux-doc@vger.kernel.org (open list:DOCUMENTATION) >> >> linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org (open list) >> >> As you see, --git-fallback is used in this case. Why? >> It looks strange to me as Jon is listed as a "maintainer". >> >> Having "F: Documentation/" in MAINTAINERS does not suffice? > > No. It's not an exact pattern match as the files below the > top level of Documentation are not specifically matched by > "F: Documentation/". For me, calling this is "not an exact pattern match" sounds inconsistent with the explanation (quoted below) near the top of MAINTAINERS: F: *Files* and directories wildcard patterns. A trailing slash includes all files and subdirectory files. What am I missing? Does this explanation needs update? Regards, Akira > [...] ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 15+ messages in thread
* Re: [PATCH v3] Documentation/process: Add text to indicate supporters should be mailed 2022-10-03 1:17 ` Akira Yokosawa @ 2022-10-03 1:28 ` Joe Perches 0 siblings, 0 replies; 15+ messages in thread From: Joe Perches @ 2022-10-03 1:28 UTC (permalink / raw) To: Akira Yokosawa Cc: corbet, konstantin, Theodore Ts'o, Bryan O'Donoghue, Krzysztof Kozlowski, linux, linux-doc, linux-kernel On Mon, 2022-10-03 at 10:17 +0900, Akira Yokosawa wrote: > On Sun, 02 Oct 2022 16:55:05 -0700, Joe Perches wrote: > > On Mon, 2022-10-03 at 08:04 +0900, Akira Yokosawa wrote: > > > Hello Joe, > > > > > > Thank you for chiming in. > > > > > > On 2022/10/03 0:49, Joe Perches wrote: > > > > On Sun, 2022-10-02 at 09:58 +0200, Krzysztof Kozlowski wrote: > > > > > The easiest to achieve it is to run with --no-git-fallback and CC entire > > > > > output. However it does not mean submitter must run with > > > > > --no-git-fallback. It is only for this generic rule - CC entire output > > > > > of get_maintainers.pl. > > > > > > > > > > If you add such rule "CC entire output of get_maintainers.pl" and do not > > > > > mention no-git-fallback, some folks will think they need to CC all these > > > > > people who made one commit to your file... > > > > > > > > false. > > > > > > > > git-fallback is _not_ used when there is a listed maintainer for a > > > > specific file. > > > > > > > > If there is a use of git-fallback, it's because there is _no_ > > > > specified maintainer for a specific file. > > > > > > > > --git-fallback => use git when no exact MAINTAINERS pattern (default: 1) > > > > > > > > i.e.: It's not "your file" if you don't maintain it. > > > > > > Joe, I sometimes see unexpected output WRT --git-fallback. > > > > > > Example: > > > > > > $ ./get_maintainer.pl -f Documentation/doc-guide/sphinx.rst > > > Jonathan Corbet <corbet@lwn.net> (maintainer:DOCUMENTATION,commit_signer:1/1=100%) > > > <-- ??? > > > Lukas Bulwahn <lukas.bulwahn@gmail.com> (commit_signer:1/1=100%,authored:1/1=100%,added_lines:2/2=100%,removed_lines:2/2=100%) > > > <-- ??? > > > linux-doc@vger.kernel.org (open list:DOCUMENTATION) > > > > > > linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org (open list) > > > > > > As you see, --git-fallback is used in this case. Why? > > > It looks strange to me as Jon is listed as a "maintainer". > > > > > > Having "F: Documentation/" in MAINTAINERS does not suffice? > > > > No. It's not an exact pattern match as the files below the > > top level of Documentation are not specifically matched by > > "F: Documentation/". > For me, calling this is "not an exact pattern match" sounds > inconsistent with the explanation (quoted below) near the top of > MAINTAINERS: > > F: *Files* and directories wildcard patterns. > A trailing slash includes all files and subdirectory files. > What am I missing? > Does this explanation needs update? Maybe. Suggest some text. Read about the pattern-depth entries (basically, it's the count of forward slashes '/' in a maintained file pattern) Look for MAINTAINER entries where there are <foo>/*/ entries too. For instance: MAINTAINERS-INTEL ETHERNET DRIVERS MAINTAINERS-M: Jesse Brandeburg <jesse.brandeburg@intel.com> MAINTAINERS-M: Tony Nguyen <anthony.l.nguyen@intel.com> MAINTAINERS-L: intel-wired-lan@lists.osuosl.org (moderated for non-subscribers) MAINTAINERS-S: Supported MAINTAINERS-W: http://www.intel.com/support/feedback.htm MAINTAINERS-W: http://e1000.sourceforge.net/ MAINTAINERS-Q: http://patchwork.ozlabs.org/project/intel-wired-lan/list/ MAINTAINERS-T: git git://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/tnguy/net-queue.git MAINTAINERS-T: git git://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/tnguy/next-queue.git MAINTAINERS-F: Documentation/networking/device_drivers/ethernet/intel/ MAINTAINERS-F: drivers/net/ethernet/intel/ MAINTAINERS:F: drivers/net/ethernet/intel/*/ <<< Here >>> MAINTAINERS-F: include/linux/avf/virtchnl.h MAINTAINERS-F: include/linux/net/intel/iidc.h So this entry is show that all of drivers/net/ethernet/intel/<foo>/ are directly maintained. ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 15+ messages in thread
* Re: [PATCH v3] Documentation/process: Add text to indicate supporters should be mailed 2022-09-30 14:47 ` Akira Yokosawa 2022-09-30 16:18 ` Bryan O'Donoghue @ 2022-09-30 18:41 ` Bryan O'Donoghue 1 sibling, 0 replies; 15+ messages in thread From: Bryan O'Donoghue @ 2022-09-30 18:41 UTC (permalink / raw) To: Akira Yokosawa Cc: corbet, konstantin, krzysztof.kozlowski, linux-doc, linux-kernel, linux, tytso On 30/09/2022 15:47, Akira Yokosawa wrote: > I guess all you need would be just a short notice along the lines of: > > "supporter" in the output from get_maintainer.pl means "maintainer > of a supported subsystem". > > No? Oh and I forgot to say, Krzysztof suggesting listing the entire set of those who should be mailed and not confining to maintiners and supporters only and TBH I think he was right. Reviewers, sub arch mailing lists, and in some cases LKML are all required. We should state that more clearly. --- bod ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 15+ messages in thread
end of thread, other threads:[~2022-10-03 1:28 UTC | newest] Thread overview: 15+ messages (download: mbox.gz / follow: Atom feed) -- links below jump to the message on this page -- 2022-09-30 6:46 [PATCH v3 0/1] Expand get_maintainer to be explicit about supporters Bryan O'Donoghue 2022-09-30 6:46 ` [PATCH v3] Documentation/process: Add text to indicate supporters should be mailed Bryan O'Donoghue 2022-09-30 14:47 ` Akira Yokosawa 2022-09-30 16:18 ` Bryan O'Donoghue 2022-09-30 16:34 ` Bryan O'Donoghue 2022-10-01 2:37 ` Theodore Ts'o 2022-10-01 10:37 ` Bryan O'Donoghue 2022-10-02 0:27 ` Akira Yokosawa 2022-10-02 7:58 ` Krzysztof Kozlowski 2022-10-02 15:49 ` Joe Perches 2022-10-02 23:04 ` Akira Yokosawa 2022-10-02 23:55 ` Joe Perches 2022-10-03 1:17 ` Akira Yokosawa 2022-10-03 1:28 ` Joe Perches 2022-09-30 18:41 ` Bryan O'Donoghue
This is an external index of several public inboxes, see mirroring instructions on how to clone and mirror all data and code used by this external index.