From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.2 (2018-09-13) on archive.lwn.net X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-5.7 required=5.0 tests=HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS, MAILING_LIST_MULTI,RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI,SPF_HELO_NONE,SPF_NONE autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no version=3.4.2 Received: from vger.kernel.org (vger.kernel.org [209.132.180.67]) by archive.lwn.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id 94EBA7D2F0 for ; Tue, 1 Oct 2019 17:36:31 +0000 (UTC) Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1730958AbfJARgb (ORCPT ); Tue, 1 Oct 2019 13:36:31 -0400 Received: from ms.lwn.net ([45.79.88.28]:38418 "EHLO ms.lwn.net" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1730809AbfJARgb (ORCPT ); Tue, 1 Oct 2019 13:36:31 -0400 Received: from lwn.net (localhost [127.0.0.1]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ms.lwn.net (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 44341316; Tue, 1 Oct 2019 17:36:30 +0000 (UTC) Date: Tue, 1 Oct 2019 11:36:29 -0600 From: Jonathan Corbet To: Kees Cook Cc: Mauro Carvalho Chehab , Jani Nikula , linux-doc@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Subject: Re: [PATCH 0/2] docs: Programmatically render MAINTAINERS into ReST Message-ID: <20191001113629.6cdb1abb@lwn.net> In-Reply-To: <201910010916.8B8248222@keescook> References: <20190924230208.12414-1-keescook@chromium.org> <20191001083147.3a1b513f@lwn.net> <201910010916.8B8248222@keescook> Organization: LWN.net MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Sender: linux-doc-owner@vger.kernel.org Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-doc@vger.kernel.org On Tue, 1 Oct 2019 09:27:29 -0700 Kees Cook wrote: > On Tue, Oct 01, 2019 at 08:31:47AM -0600, Jonathan Corbet wrote: > > On a separate note...it occurred to me, rather belatedly as usual, that > > last time we discussed doing this that there was some opposition to adding > > a second MAINTAINERS parser to the kernel; future changes to the format of > > that file may force both to be adjusted, and somebody will invariably > > forget one. Addressing that, if we feel a need to do so, probably requires > > tweaking get_maintainer.pl to output the information in a useful format. > > That's a reasonable point, but I would make two observations: > > - get_maintainers.pl is written in Perl and I really don't want to write > more Perl. ;) Trust me, I get it! > - the parsing methods in get_maintainers is much more focused on the > file/pattern matching and is blind to the structure of the rest > of the document (it only examines '^[A-Z]:' and blank lines), and > does so "on demand", in that it hunts through the entire MAINTAINERS > file contents for each path match. > > So I don't think it's suitable to merge functionality here... Makes sense to me. If anybody out there objects, speak now ... jon