From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.0 (2014-02-07) on aws-us-west-2-korg-lkml-1.web.codeaurora.org X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-6.2 required=3.0 tests=BAYES_00,DKIMWL_WL_HIGH, DKIM_SIGNED,DKIM_VALID,DKIM_VALID_AU,MAILING_LIST_MULTI,SPF_HELO_NONE, SPF_PASS,URIBL_RED autolearn=no autolearn_force=no version=3.4.0 Received: from mail.kernel.org (mail.kernel.org [198.145.29.99]) by smtp.lore.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 99A92C2B9F4 for ; Thu, 17 Jun 2021 14:33:43 +0000 (UTC) Received: from vger.kernel.org (vger.kernel.org [23.128.96.18]) by mail.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 691A6613CB for ; Thu, 17 Jun 2021 14:33:43 +0000 (UTC) Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S231868AbhFQOfu (ORCPT ); Thu, 17 Jun 2021 10:35:50 -0400 Received: from mail.kernel.org ([198.145.29.99]:32810 "EHLO mail.kernel.org" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S231346AbhFQOfu (ORCPT ); Thu, 17 Jun 2021 10:35:50 -0400 Received: by mail.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 88A7E613EA for ; Thu, 17 Jun 2021 14:33:42 +0000 (UTC) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=kernel.org; s=k20201202; t=1623940422; bh=akYCRDR7hRHCuqn+eExSor0NNpx0BUjJjGLJe7a/GrQ=; h=References:In-Reply-To:From:Date:Subject:To:Cc:From; b=kzxqw6Zij3Trq9ZJldDaKqUgKdytswFfq2FxNgKWEhk/yJE9xUXZnE2tlfDqgig+Q FMqLrqy/BtJsh/eF15uFZ1ZE6p2mIsWl4FnVM76kuUXZbhwm3BiUCtPmxauHhghia8 i7xFeKAUGMEswQ7+kVYCCvdFfZX+uERE81l8OPYzaHa5KUP8fKoWoHoHYkR8ZduFpM amZh/+X5wQ0t4ERyfsoCBVO3Y7K4+rohbV++iEjN1NP7irdFE5qPA0SQcNLE53IFCM CKaqEY/YV2tdPsmq40idufI65PvF30c5ZMZD93UzkF2gVsFS/CC8N6wI7u9x5gzrSp HjLjcw2W02iBg== Received: by mail-ed1-f45.google.com with SMTP id z12so4365129edc.1 for ; Thu, 17 Jun 2021 07:33:42 -0700 (PDT) X-Gm-Message-State: AOAM531fYTvpFMh9TPqZc6yx++vUzz5Ge4inStOJL1EZgKKO0khP+k2H E0BPYVmdOdYGaxrRUMabS9KNoC05eHS6QjiKcw== X-Google-Smtp-Source: ABdhPJxvPJH9duc8iokf5yy6xqpZqoBDrmSIh9dE3raa3tQ1hsrk1/QN087BtcS/PKrzbthP0m9cPLmH4UdWL/LmX4k= X-Received: by 2002:a05:6402:cb0:: with SMTP id cn16mr6847590edb.165.1623940421107; Thu, 17 Jun 2021 07:33:41 -0700 (PDT) MIME-Version: 1.0 References: <20210616171813.bwvu6mtl4ltotf7p@nitro.local> <20210617085251.78d376d7@coco.lan> <20210617105534.0d4c02df@coco.lan> In-Reply-To: <20210617105534.0d4c02df@coco.lan> From: Rob Herring Date: Thu, 17 Jun 2021 08:33:29 -0600 X-Gmail-Original-Message-ID: Message-ID: Subject: Re: RFC: Github PR bot questions To: Mauro Carvalho Chehab Cc: Dmitry Vyukov , Konstantin Ryabitsev , users@linux.kernel.org, workflows@vger.kernel.org Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: workflows@vger.kernel.org On Thu, Jun 17, 2021 at 2:55 AM Mauro Carvalho Chehab wrote: > > Em Thu, 17 Jun 2021 10:20:31 +0200 > Dmitry Vyukov escreveu: > > > On Thu, Jun 17, 2021 at 8:53 AM Mauro Carvalho Chehab > > wrote: > > > > > > Em Wed, 16 Jun 2021 15:11:33 -0600 > > > Rob Herring escreveu: > > > > > > > On Wed, Jun 16, 2021 at 11:18 AM Konstantin Ryabitsev > > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > Hi, all: > > > > > > > > > > I've been doing some work on the "github-pr-to-ml" bot that can monitor GitHub > > > > > pull requests on a project and convert them into fully well-formed patch > > > > > series. This would be a one-way operation, effectively turning Github into a > > > > > fancy "git-send-email" replacement. That said, it would have the following > > > > > benefits for both submitters and maintainers: > > > > > > > > What makes this specific to Github PRs? A Github PR is really just a > > > > git branch plus a target at least to the extent we would use it here. > > > > The more of this that works on just a git branch, the more widely > > > > useful it would be. > > > > > > > > > - submitters would no longer need to navigate their way around > > > > > git-format-patch, get_maintainer.pl, and git-send-email -- nor would need to > > > > > have a patch-friendly outgoing mail gateway to properly contribute patches > > > > > > > > Presumably, the bot would rely on get_maintainer.pl or it would get > > > > who to send to based on GH repo and reviewers? Without work on > > > > get_maintainer.pl, I don't think it will work well beyond simple > > > > cases. > > > > > > Some sanity test is needed, as otherwise it will end by trying to send > > > the patch to a large number of people. > > > > I think this system needs to use get_maintainer.pl results as is and > > any fixing/filtering/sanity checking needs to go into > > get_maintainer.pl itself. > > get_maintainer.pl is what is used by lots of contributors, the only > > option for any automated systems, what is used by new contributors if > > they don't use this system anyway. And even experienced developers > > know internal rules only for a few subsystems and use > > get_maintainer.pl when sending a one-off patch to another subsystem > > (what else?). > > > > I don't see where we are getting if we accept get_maintainer.pl > > produces bad results and needs additional fixing in every system out > > there (dozens) and when used by humans. All systems would need the > > same filtering/checking rules and they need to keep in sync. What a > > kernel developer would even need to do to fix something (add/remove > > themselves)? Go and talk to a large unknown set of systems that > > duplicate the same additional rules? > > > > And the only way to surface actual issues with get_maintainer.pl is to > > start using it. In fact it's already widely used as is, so I am not > > sure it's particularly bad. > > I'm not saying that get_maintainer.pl produces bad result. Depending > on what is done, it could produce a very large output. > > Let's suppose that someone do something like globally renaming a > widely-used kAPI, e. g. something like: > > $ git ls-files|xargs sed s,mutex_,new_mutex_, -i > > A change like that would touch lots of subsystems, making get_maintainer.pl > to spend a lot of time processing it, and producing thousands of > entries (btw, we had a change somewhat similar to the above a long time > ago when mutex API was introduced and most of the semaphores were converted > to use mutex kAPI instead). What I end up doing in those cases is only Cc'ing the subsystem maintainers. But that's a manual step of dropping all the driver and SoC maintainers. A related problem is if you want to put who should apply the patch on To. That's maybe as simple as whether the maintainer entry has a git tree. I'd tackle that, but it's Perl, no thanks. Rob