From: "Uwe Kleine-König" <ukleinek@strlen.de>
To: "H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@zytor.com>
Cc: Pekka Enberg <penberg@cs.helsinki.fi>,
Ben Dooks <ben-linux@fluff.org>,
Denis Vlasenko <vda@port.imtp.ilyichevsk.odessa.ua>,
linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [RFC] List of maintainers (draft #3)
Date: Mon, 22 Sep 2008 21:42:42 +0200 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20080922194242.GA792@strlen.de> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <48D7CA62.1020805@zytor.com>
Hello,
(hhm, my MTA failed to send my mail to Denis. I'll try once more.)
On Mon, Sep 22, 2008 at 09:40:02AM -0700, H. Peter Anvin wrote:
> Pekka Enberg wrote:
>> Figuring out whom to send a patch to is not something you can automate
>> because it not only depends on what you're changing but *how* you're
>> changing it. The classic case being that whenever you change something
>> related to RCU that's non-trivial, you almost certainly want to CC
>> Paul "RCU" McKenney. But there's no *file* or *directory* pattern that
>> can automatically tell you this.
>> Furthermore, if you're hacking on a specific part of the kernel, you
>> almost certainly are doing it wrong if you don't know who the relevant
>> maintainers are. For simple janitorial patches, you probably should
>> just work out the *top-level* maintainers (davem for networking, ingo
>> et al for x86, and so on) and send the patches to them. And when these
>> simple rules fail you, fall back to patch bombing Andrew.
>
> This is, of course, true; however, there are people who should *always* be
> included when touching specific files, and this *can* be automated. This is
> particularly so when sending out cross-architectural patchsets.
>
> So no, automation isn't a substitute for intelligence, but that doesn't
> mean that it can't be an *assistance*.
>
> We need this. Right now too many people screw up even the part that *can*
> be automated.
Thanks hpa. That would have been roughly my response, too. I can see
Pekka's point, too, but IMHO the advantages outweight the disadvantages.
This might result in some mails that don't reach the complete needed
audience, but it should assert that at least one right person is reached
and this one probably knows who to forward the mail. I expect that in
most cases the automatic answer is right, though.
Continuing planning how to implement such an automation I found that
git-send-email already has an option --cc-cmd=/path/to/some/program.
program is called once per patch and should print email addresses to
stdout. (This is already nearly optimal. The only missing part is that
the addresses should occur in the resulting commit in a Cc: line. This
could be implemented in program, too, but for me it feels wrong to do it
there. IMHO git-send-email would be the better place. I consider this
lower prio, though, so this has to wait (or be done by someone else).)
To go forward with how to specify a file <-> maintainer relation I
suggest to standardize a field F in MAINTAINERS that specifies the
associated files. (There are already three entries that have such a
field.) I'm not sure if the content should be a regular expression or
simply a list of files/directories. The following arguments come to my
mind:
- RE usually shorter (e.g. include/linux/netfilter.* substitutes
11 files and directories).
- list of files easier readable for humans.
- list of files is more conceivable, e.g. you can pass each item to
git-log.
Moreover I suggest to mark the introduction in MAINTAINERS with '#' to
ease parsing it. (This is easy, I will reply with a patch.)
For in-file specification of maintainership I suggest similar to
MAINTAINERS:
$TOPIC
P: Joe H. Acker <joehacker@mail.do.main>
L: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
in the first comment of the file. (Supporting C-Style and #-comments.
Is anything more needed?)
I will start experimenting a bit and hope to provide some results soon.
I look forward to any constructive feedback.
Best regards
Uwe
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2008-09-22 19:43 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 14+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2002-02-07 14:54 [RFC] List of maintainers (draft #3) Denis Vlasenko
2008-09-22 8:12 ` Uwe Kleine-König
2008-09-22 9:12 ` Ben Dooks
2008-09-22 9:23 ` Pekka Enberg
2008-09-22 16:40 ` H. Peter Anvin
2008-09-22 19:42 ` Uwe Kleine-König [this message]
2008-09-23 5:10 ` Joe Perches
2008-09-29 17:56 ` Pavel Machek
2008-10-01 0:10 ` Randy Dunlap
2008-10-01 0:09 ` Joe Perches
2008-10-01 0:35 ` Randy Dunlap
2008-10-01 13:36 ` Pavel Machek
2008-10-01 15:41 ` Randy Dunlap
2008-10-01 12:25 ` [PATCH] [RFC] Add a script that searched per-file maintainers for a patch Uwe Kleine-König
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=20080922194242.GA792@strlen.de \
--to=ukleinek@strlen.de \
--cc=ben-linux@fluff.org \
--cc=hpa@zytor.com \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=penberg@cs.helsinki.fi \
--cc=vda@port.imtp.ilyichevsk.odessa.ua \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox