From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1754075AbYIVQlT (ORCPT ); Mon, 22 Sep 2008 12:41:19 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S1751573AbYIVQlI (ORCPT ); Mon, 22 Sep 2008 12:41:08 -0400 Received: from terminus.zytor.com ([198.137.202.10]:43652 "EHLO terminus.zytor.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1751553AbYIVQlF (ORCPT ); Mon, 22 Sep 2008 12:41:05 -0400 Message-ID: <48D7CA62.1020805@zytor.com> Date: Mon, 22 Sep 2008 09:40:02 -0700 From: "H. Peter Anvin" User-Agent: Thunderbird 2.0.0.14 (X11/20080501) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Pekka Enberg CC: Ben Dooks , Uwe Kleine-K?nig , Denis Vlasenko , linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Subject: Re: [RFC] List of maintainers (draft #3) References: <200202071054.g17Asst06608@Port.imtp.ilyichevsk.odessa.ua> <20080922081239.GA28726@strlen.de> <20080922091256.GH1916@fluff.org.uk> <84144f020809220223jbb71877ued9d3b2569c4cd67@mail.gmail.com> In-Reply-To: <84144f020809220223jbb71877ued9d3b2569c4cd67@mail.gmail.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org 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. -hpa