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

[Christoph Hellwig <hch@lst.de>]

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.
> 
> 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.

> > If you're unwilling to fix this please at least add a get_maintainers.ignore
> > file and add me as the first entry.  Thanks!
> 
> If a get_maintainers.ignore file is created,
> (which seems like a reasonable idea, thanks),
> I'm not maintaining it.
> 
> Maybe this: (if you create a .get_maintainer.ignore file
> with your name in it like)

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.