* [PATCH v5 0/1] Fixup instructions around mailing recipients @ 2022-10-04 12:48 Bryan O'Donoghue 2022-10-04 12:48 ` [PATCH v5 1/1] Documentation/process: Be more explicit about who to mail on patch submission Bryan O'Donoghue 0 siblings, 1 reply; 6+ messages in thread From: Bryan O'Donoghue @ 2022-10-04 12:48 UTC (permalink / raw) To: corbet, linux, konstantin, krzysztof.kozlowski, linux-doc, joe, akiyks Cc: linux-kernel, Bryan O'Donoghue V5: - Drops get_maintainer.pl removal of supporter - Joe Perches - Back to one standalone Documentation change - Krzysztof's suggested list RESEND: + Akira V4: - Change the subject line of the series Previous: Expand get_maintainer to be explicit about supporters https://lore.kernel.org/all/20220930064629.329514-1-bryan.odonoghue@linaro.org/t/ - Update get_maintainer.pl to return "maintainer" for both "S: Supported" and "S: Maintained" - Theodore Tso For the purposes of sending a patch whether or not the maintainer is listed as volunteer or paid is not really useful information. Listing both as "maintainer" is clearer the end user. - Incorporate Krzysztof's list of recipients into Documentation/process/submitting-patches.rst. - I didn't include the get_mainainter.pl example. Comments from both Akira and Joe suggest to me the example is not that useful. - get_maintainer will no longer produce "supporter" so one could argue that the documentation shouldn't refer to supporters however not all of the potential output strings are documented and I've opted not to document "chief penguin" either. I'd like to focus on the particular case of supporters with some reasonable knock-on documentation tweaks for the obvious gaps we've identified in our discussion because "supporter" really means "maintainer" and you absolutely have to mail that person to get your patch into the right inbox. 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: Be more explicit about who to mail on patch submission Documentation/process/submitting-patches.rst | 7 +++++-- 1 file changed, 5 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-) -- 2.37.3 ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 6+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v5 1/1] Documentation/process: Be more explicit about who to mail on patch submission 2022-10-04 12:48 [PATCH v5 0/1] Fixup instructions around mailing recipients Bryan O'Donoghue @ 2022-10-04 12:48 ` Bryan O'Donoghue 2022-10-04 15:17 ` Akira Yokosawa 0 siblings, 1 reply; 6+ messages in thread From: Bryan O'Donoghue @ 2022-10-04 12:48 UTC (permalink / raw) To: corbet, linux, konstantin, krzysztof.kozlowski, linux-doc, joe, akiyks 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. Discussing further on the list the suggestion was made to state that the following are the right addresses to mail: - Maintainers - Supporters - Reviewers - Dedicated lists - LKML as a fallback when there is no dedicated list Add in a two sentences to capture that statement. Signed-off-by: Bryan O'Donoghue <bryan.odonoghue@linaro.org> --- Documentation/process/submitting-patches.rst | 7 +++++-- 1 file changed, 5 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-) diff --git a/Documentation/process/submitting-patches.rst b/Documentation/process/submitting-patches.rst index be49d8f2601b4..90fda3367a405 100644 --- a/Documentation/process/submitting-patches.rst +++ b/Documentation/process/submitting-patches.rst @@ -227,8 +227,11 @@ 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 +your patches as arguments to scripts/get_maintainer.pl). In the output of +get_maintainer.pl the recommendation is to mail every maintainer, supporter, +reviewer and dedicated mailing list. If get_maintainer doesn't indicate a +dedicated mailing list linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org should be included. 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. You should also normally choose at least one mailing list to receive a copy -- 2.37.3 ^ permalink raw reply related [flat|nested] 6+ messages in thread
* Re: [PATCH v5 1/1] Documentation/process: Be more explicit about who to mail on patch submission 2022-10-04 12:48 ` [PATCH v5 1/1] Documentation/process: Be more explicit about who to mail on patch submission Bryan O'Donoghue @ 2022-10-04 15:17 ` Akira Yokosawa 2022-10-04 16:27 ` Bryan O'Donoghue 0 siblings, 1 reply; 6+ messages in thread From: Akira Yokosawa @ 2022-10-04 15:17 UTC (permalink / raw) To: Bryan O'Donoghue Cc: linux-kernel, corbet, linux, konstantin, krzysztof.kozlowski, linux-doc, joe Hi Bryan, I'll be silent on the word choice of "supporter" for the time being. :-) On Tue, 4 Oct 2022 13:48:58 +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. Discussing further on the list the suggestion was made to state > that the following are the right addresses to mail: > > - Maintainers > - Supporters > - Reviewers > - Dedicated lists > - LKML as a fallback when there is no dedicated list > > Add in a two sentences to capture that statement. > > Signed-off-by: Bryan O'Donoghue <bryan.odonoghue@linaro.org> > --- > Documentation/process/submitting-patches.rst | 7 +++++-- > 1 file changed, 5 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-) > > diff --git a/Documentation/process/submitting-patches.rst b/Documentation/process/submitting-patches.rst > index be49d8f2601b4..90fda3367a405 100644 > --- a/Documentation/process/submitting-patches.rst > +++ b/Documentation/process/submitting-patches.rst > @@ -227,8 +227,11 @@ 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 > +your patches as arguments to scripts/get_maintainer.pl). In the output of > +get_maintainer.pl the recommendation is to mail every maintainer, supporter, > +reviewer and dedicated mailing list. If get_maintainer doesn't indicate a > +dedicated mailing list linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org should be included. 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. > > You should also normally choose at least one mailing list to receive a copy Quoting subsequent paragraph: 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 for all patches, but the volume on that list has caused a number of developers to tune it out. Look in the MAINTAINERS file for a subsystem-specific list; your patch will probably get more attention there. Please do not spam unrelated lists, though. The paragraph you updated mentions the maintainers (as persons) to send patches. The subsequent paragraph talks about mailing lists. After this patch is applied, they look mostly redundant except for an important difference. In your patch, Cc: LKML is recommended only when a subsystem-specific list can not be found. In the subsequent paragraph, LKML is recommended to be Cc'd by default, in addition to subsystem-specific lists. Does my interpretation wrong? Doesn't the subsequent paragraph (quoted above) work for you? If it does, you don't need to mention mail lists in your change. Otherwise, you also need to tweak/remove the subsequent paragraph. Thoughts? Lastly, you submitted v5 within 24 hours from v4. Why so hurry, especially in the middle of the 6.1 merge window? Actually, as v5 is the same as 2/2 in v4, there was no need of v5 in the first place. I'm expecting to see v6 of this patch after the docs-next branch gets ready for the next development cycle. Until such time comes, let's continue discussing ideas here in this thread. Thanks, Akira ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 6+ messages in thread
* Re: [PATCH v5 1/1] Documentation/process: Be more explicit about who to mail on patch submission 2022-10-04 15:17 ` Akira Yokosawa @ 2022-10-04 16:27 ` Bryan O'Donoghue 2022-10-04 16:38 ` Bryan O'Donoghue 2022-10-06 14:22 ` Akira Yokosawa 0 siblings, 2 replies; 6+ messages in thread From: Bryan O'Donoghue @ 2022-10-04 16:27 UTC (permalink / raw) To: Akira Yokosawa Cc: linux-kernel, corbet, linux, konstantin, krzysztof.kozlowski, linux-doc, joe On 04/10/2022 16:17, Akira Yokosawa wrote: > Hi Bryan, > > I'll be silent on the word choice of "supporter" for the time being. :-) > > On Tue, 4 Oct 2022 13:48:58 +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. Discussing further on the list the suggestion was made to state >> that the following are the right addresses to mail: >> >> - Maintainers >> - Supporters >> - Reviewers >> - Dedicated lists >> - LKML as a fallback when there is no dedicated list >> >> Add in a two sentences to capture that statement. >> >> Signed-off-by: Bryan O'Donoghue <bryan.odonoghue@linaro.org> >> --- >> Documentation/process/submitting-patches.rst | 7 +++++-- >> 1 file changed, 5 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-) >> >> diff --git a/Documentation/process/submitting-patches.rst b/Documentation/process/submitting-patches.rst >> index be49d8f2601b4..90fda3367a405 100644 >> --- a/Documentation/process/submitting-patches.rst >> +++ b/Documentation/process/submitting-patches.rst >> @@ -227,8 +227,11 @@ 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 >> +your patches as arguments to scripts/get_maintainer.pl). In the output of >> +get_maintainer.pl the recommendation is to mail every maintainer, supporter, >> +reviewer and dedicated mailing list. If get_maintainer doesn't indicate a >> +dedicated mailing list linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org should be included. 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. >> >> You should also normally choose at least one mailing list to receive a copy > > Quoting subsequent paragraph: > > 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 > for all patches, but the volume on that list has caused a number of > developers to tune it out. Look in the MAINTAINERS file for a > subsystem-specific list; your patch will probably get more attention there. > Please do not spam unrelated lists, though. > > The paragraph you updated mentions the maintainers (as persons) to > send patches. > > The subsequent paragraph talks about mailing lists. > > After this patch is applied, they look mostly redundant except for > an important difference. In your patch, Cc: LKML is recommended only > when a subsystem-specific list can not be found. In the subsequent > paragraph, LKML is recommended to be Cc'd by default, in addition > to subsystem-specific lists. Does my interpretation wrong? Yes I take your point. It is probably wiser to drop "dedicated" from the sentence. > Doesn't the subsequent paragraph (quoted above) work for you? Not especially. I think it is a super-semantic distinction but, the word "normally" implies there is also an abnormal case. "Always" would be a better world than "normally" > If it does, you don't need to mention mail lists in your change. > Otherwise, you also need to tweak/remove the subsequent paragraph. > > Thoughts? The sentence I'm posting here pertains to the output of "get_maintainer". I think there is value in having a concise statement to say "take the output of get_maintainer and do X" I also think having a paragraph that says "you must always send to at least one mailing list" is both direct and true. You are not _required_ to run get_maintainer to submit a patch, it is simply _suggested_ so in my view the output of get_maintainer doesn't negate the statement that you must mail at least one public mailing list. --- bod ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 6+ messages in thread
* Re: [PATCH v5 1/1] Documentation/process: Be more explicit about who to mail on patch submission 2022-10-04 16:27 ` Bryan O'Donoghue @ 2022-10-04 16:38 ` Bryan O'Donoghue 2022-10-06 14:22 ` Akira Yokosawa 1 sibling, 0 replies; 6+ messages in thread From: Bryan O'Donoghue @ 2022-10-04 16:38 UTC (permalink / raw) To: Akira Yokosawa Cc: linux-kernel, corbet, linux, konstantin, krzysztof.kozlowski, linux-doc, joe On 04/10/2022 17:27, Bryan O'Donoghue wrote: > You are not _required_ to run get_maintainer to submit a patch, it is > simply _suggested_ so in my view the output of get_maintainer doesn't > negate the statement that you must mail at least one public mailing list. And similarly, saying in a subsequent paragraph that you should always mail at last one public mailing list is unnecessarily disregarding information returned by get_maintainer. get_maintainer produces a list of text that is very helpful to a developer in deciding where to send a patch. Documenting that output directly is a help. But unless/until get_maintainer is _required_ to be run on any given patch, then we should still have a standalone paragraph which explicitly states a public mailing list must receive the patch. --- bod ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 6+ messages in thread
* Re: [PATCH v5 1/1] Documentation/process: Be more explicit about who to mail on patch submission 2022-10-04 16:27 ` Bryan O'Donoghue 2022-10-04 16:38 ` Bryan O'Donoghue @ 2022-10-06 14:22 ` Akira Yokosawa 1 sibling, 0 replies; 6+ messages in thread From: Akira Yokosawa @ 2022-10-06 14:22 UTC (permalink / raw) To: Bryan O'Donoghue Cc: linux-kernel, corbet, linux, konstantin, krzysztof.kozlowski, linux-doc, joe On Tue, 4 Oct 2022 17:27:06 +0100, Bryan O'Donoghue wrote: > On 04/10/2022 16:17, Akira Yokosawa wrote: >> Hi Bryan, >> >> I'll be silent on the word choice of "supporter" for the time being. :-) >> >> On Tue, 4 Oct 2022 13:48:58 +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. Discussing further on the list the suggestion was made to state >>> that the following are the right addresses to mail: >>> >>> - Maintainers >>> - Supporters >>> - Reviewers >>> - Dedicated lists >>> - LKML as a fallback when there is no dedicated list >>> >>> Add in a two sentences to capture that statement. >>> >>> Signed-off-by: Bryan O'Donoghue <bryan.odonoghue@linaro.org> >>> --- >>> Documentation/process/submitting-patches.rst | 7 +++++-- >>> 1 file changed, 5 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-) >>> >>> diff --git a/Documentation/process/submitting-patches.rst b/Documentation/process/submitting-patches.rst >>> index be49d8f2601b4..90fda3367a405 100644 >>> --- a/Documentation/process/submitting-patches.rst >>> +++ b/Documentation/process/submitting-patches.rst >>> @@ -227,8 +227,11 @@ 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 >>> +your patches as arguments to scripts/get_maintainer.pl). In the output of >>> +get_maintainer.pl the recommendation is to mail every maintainer, supporter, >>> +reviewer and dedicated mailing list. If get_maintainer doesn't indicate a >>> +dedicated mailing list linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org should be included. 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. >>> You should also normally choose at least one mailing list to receive a copy >> >> Quoting subsequent paragraph: >> >> 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 >> for all patches, but the volume on that list has caused a number of >> developers to tune it out. Look in the MAINTAINERS file for a >> subsystem-specific list; your patch will probably get more attention there. >> Please do not spam unrelated lists, though. >> >> The paragraph you updated mentions the maintainers (as persons) to >> send patches. >> >> The subsequent paragraph talks about mailing lists. >> >> After this patch is applied, they look mostly redundant except for >> an important difference. In your patch, Cc: LKML is recommended only >> when a subsystem-specific list can not be found. In the subsequent >> paragraph, LKML is recommended to be Cc'd by default, in addition >> to subsystem-specific lists. Does my interpretation wrong? > > Yes I take your point. > > It is probably wiser to drop "dedicated" from the sentence. > >> Doesn't the subsequent paragraph (quoted above) work for you? > > Not especially. I think it is a super-semantic distinction but, > the word "normally" implies there is also an abnormal case. > > "Always" would be a better world than "normally" Then I think "normally" is the suitable choice because the choice of recipients is highly dependent of the nature of patches as well as the subsystem in question. For example, when submitting an "obviously correct" patch, my list of CCs could be just: Cc: Main maintainer of the subsystem in question Cc: subsystem-specific list Cc: LKML , because I can expect the main maintainer would apply it without any need of someone else's review, and I don't want to spam other maintainers/reviewers. On the other hand, when submitting a fix of a regression, my list of CCs would be: Cc: Author of the offending commit Cc: Reviewer A who gave a Reported-by: tag to the offending commit ... Cc: Maintainer B who is in the Signed-off-by chain of the offending commit Cc: Maintainer C who is also in the Signed-off-by chain ... Cc: Main Maintainer of the subsystem in question Cc: subsystem-specific list Cc: LKML When submitting a new version of a patch, in addition to the above, Cc: Developer D who commented in earlier version(s) of the patch Cc: Developer E who commented in earlier version(s) of the patch ... To be clear, I don't use get_maintainer.pl so much for patches to subsystems I have experience with. I sometimes try it for unfamiliar area of kernel source tree to know which subsystem it belongs to. I'm not sure if this scheme works if I need to submit a patch to devicetree/media/... where organization of subsystems is complex. As for submitting-patches.rst, although the expected audience is inexperienced in submitting patches, it would be safe assume > >> If it does, you don't need to mention mail lists in your change. >> Otherwise, you also need to tweak/remove the subsequent paragraph. >> >> Thoughts? > > The sentence I'm posting here pertains to the output of "get_maintainer". > I think there is value in having a concise statement to say "take > the output of get_maintainer and do X" > > I also think having a paragraph that says "you must always send > to at least one mailing list" is both direct and true. You might like to be told so, I'd like to know possible options I can choose. > > You are not _required_ to run get_maintainer to submit a patch, > it is simply _suggested_ so in my view the output of get_maintainer > doesn't negate the statement that you must mail at least one public > mailing list. You lost me already. Running get_maintainer is optional, but I must always obey its suggestion? Huh? I'm beginning to agree what Jon commented when he applied Krzysztof's patch [1]: I worry about trying to cram every detail into these documents; it's not as if their length isn't intimidating already. But I've gone ahead and applied this, thanks. [1]: https://lore.kernel.org/all/87ee12cq2j.fsf@meer.lwn.net/ Bryan, what you are trying here is going to worry Jon further. I believe this introductory document needs to be kept as concise as possible. Documentation on get_maintainer.pl can go elsewhere, and can be as lengthy as you'd like. I think I'm not going to do any more review of this kind of change. Bye. Akira > > --- > bod ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 6+ messages in thread
end of thread, other threads:[~2022-10-06 14:22 UTC | newest] Thread overview: 6+ messages (download: mbox.gz / follow: Atom feed) -- links below jump to the message on this page -- 2022-10-04 12:48 [PATCH v5 0/1] Fixup instructions around mailing recipients Bryan O'Donoghue 2022-10-04 12:48 ` [PATCH v5 1/1] Documentation/process: Be more explicit about who to mail on patch submission Bryan O'Donoghue 2022-10-04 15:17 ` Akira Yokosawa 2022-10-04 16:27 ` Bryan O'Donoghue 2022-10-04 16:38 ` Bryan O'Donoghue 2022-10-06 14:22 ` Akira Yokosawa
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox; as well as URLs for NNTP newsgroup(s).