Re: get_maintainers.pl is rude, was Re: [PATCH 05/19] USB: inode.c: move assignment out of if () block

[Joe Perches <joe@perches.com>]

On Tue, 2015-05-05 at 17:38 +0200, Christoph Hellwig wrote:
> On Sat, May 02, 2015 at 06:52:19AM -0700, Joe Perches wrote:
> > > I can see the point to guess it by
> > > non-maintainer signoffs, but authorship is plain wrong and highly
> > > annoying.

The commit signer/author lookup is only done for files
that do not have a specified maintainer.

> > That's an assertion, but you've neglected to give
> > a rationale for it.  I think authorship is quite a
> > good reason to be cc'd on something as given that
> > you've spent the effort to originate code, you're
> > also quite likely to be interested in patches for
> > that code.
> 
> It's not.  Patch authorship != driver authorship.  There are people
> like me or Al that keep fixing interface all over the tree.  That doesn't
> really mean I need patches touching those same files again in my inbox.
> I generally couldn't care less, and if I do I will pick it up through
> the mailinglists.

There are also people that author patches that are
interested in follow-on changes too.

I also touch many files across the kernel, and I get
the odd random patches I'm not uninterested in.  I have
no issue with the 3 seconds it takes to ignore them.

> If we can't get the bullshit heuristics fixed properly please add this
> support, and feel free to use me as the initial seed for it.

As I said, I'm not interested in doing anything to any
.ignore file.

I'll submit the patch to the script, you can submit the
patch to add your name to the .ignore file.

cheers, Joe