Re: [PATCH RFC 2/2] rcu: Add Josh Triplett as designated reviewer

[Randy Dunlap <rdunlap@infradead.org>]

On 06/02/2014 06:51 PM, Josh Triplett wrote:
> On Mon, Jun 02, 2014 at 06:07:18PM -0700, Randy Dunlap wrote:
>> On 06/02/2014 05:02 PM, josh@joshtriplett.org wrote:
>>> On Mon, Jun 02, 2014 at 01:38:56PM -0700, Randy Dunlap wrote:
>>>> On 06/02/2014 01:36 PM, Joe Perches wrote:
>>>>> On Mon, 2014-06-02 at 13:35 -0700, Andrew Morton wrote:
>>>>>> On Mon,  2 Jun 2014 10:00:20 -0700 "Paul E. McKenney" <paulmck@linux.vnet.ibm.com> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> --- a/MAINTAINERS
>>>>>>> +++ b/MAINTAINERS
>>>>>>> @@ -7321,6 +7321,7 @@ F:	kernel/rcu/torture.c
>>>>>>>  
>>>>>>>  RCUTORTURE TEST FRAMEWORK
>>>>>>>  M:	"Paul E. McKenney" <paulmck@linux.vnet.ibm.com>
>>>>>>> +R:	Josh Triplett <josh@joshtriplett.org>
>>>>>>>  L:	linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
>>>>>>>  S:	Supported
>>>>>>>  T:	git git://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/paulmck/linux-rcu.git
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I like the general principle - knowing who to poke regarding a kernel
>>>>>> change is useful.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I don't care much whether it's "M:" or "R:", although "R:" carries more
>>>>>> meaning and hence is probably better.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> But why not "Cc:"?  That's meaningful too and is more copy-n-paste friendly.
>>>>
>>>> Josh, what are you assuming that Andrew and I did not?
>>>
>>> Not sure what you mean here.  Responding to the text you quoted: I have
>>> no particular need to bikeshed the tag name, so if you prefer "Cc" and
>>> can convince get_maintainer.pl to handle it, fine by me.
>>
>> Sorry, what I meant is that Andrew and I both mentioned copy-paste and
>> you replied earlier (and I have already deleted it) that copy-paste shouldn't
>> be necessary for someone who is using get_maintainer.pl.
>>
>> Do you redirect its output to your patch file and then edit it or does
>> get_maintainer.pl work with git-send-email or something else?  if something
>> else, what is it, please?
> 
> Oh, I see; that was in text you hadn't quoted, so I didn't know what you
> were asking. :)
> 
> git send-email can invoke 'scripts/get_maintainer.pl --no-rolestats'
> directly via --to-cmd or -cc-cmd; that works fine as long as you don't
> have a cover letter.
> 
> Depending on the system I'm running on, and whether it's more convenient
> to invoke git-send-email or to edit patch mails and send them with 'mutt
> -H', I have a shell pipeline which invokes get_maintainer.pl on an
> entire patch series, collects all the email addresses it returns, and
> inserts them all into each mail as CCs.  (That way, when I send a
> cross-subsystem patch series, I don't get a pile of maintainers confused
> that they only received a couple of the numbered patches.)  One example:
> 
> { echo -n "To: " ; for x in *.patch ; do scripts/get_maintainer.pl --no-rolestats < $x | fgrep -v josh@joshtriplett.org ; done | sort -u | sed 's/$/, /;$s/, $//' | tr -d '\n' ; echo ; } | sed -i '/^From:/r/dev/stdin'

I see.  Thanks for the summary.

> Personally, I'd find it handy if one of the following happened:
> 
> - git send-email (and ideally also git format-patch) grew an option to
>   collect *all* the to-cmd and cc-cmd output from each patch and apply
>   it to every patch (including the cover letter).
> 
> - get_maintainer.pl accepted multiple patchfile names and output the
>   union of the results.  Ideally, get_maintainer.pl would also have a -i
>   option to edit the patch files and insert the addresses in the mail
>   headers.


-- 
~Randy