Re: [ANN] pw-bot now recognizes all MAINTAINTERS

["Toke Høiland-Jørgensen" <toke@kernel.org>]

Jakub Kicinski <kuba@kernel.org> writes:

> Hi!
>
> tl;dr pw-bot now cross references the files touched by a *series* with
> MAINTAINERS and gives access to all patchwork states to people listed
> as maintainers (email addrs must match!)
>
>
> During the last merge window we introduced a new pw-bot which acts on
> simple commands included in the emails to set the patchwork state
> appropriately:
>
> https://lore.kernel.org/all/20230508092327.2619196f@kernel.org/
> https://www.kernel.org/doc/html/next/process/maintainer-netdev.html#updating-patch-status
>
> This is useful in multiple ways, the two main ones are that (1) general
> maintainers have to do less clicking in patchwork, and that (2) we have
> a log of state changes, which should help answer the question "why 
> is my patch in state X":
>
> https://patchwork.hopto.org/pw-bot.html
>
> The bot acts automatically on emails from the kbuild bot. Author of 
> the series can also discard it from patchwork (but not bring it back).
> Apart from that maintainers and select reviewers had access rights
> to the commands. Now the bot has been extended to understand who the
> maintainers are on series-by-series basis, by consulting MAINTAINERS.
> Anyone who is listed as a maintainer of any files touched by the series
> should be able to change the state of the series, both discarding it
> (e.g. changes-requested) and bringing it back (new, under-review).
>
> The main caveat is that the command must be sent from the email listed
> in MAINTAINERS. I've started hacking on aliasing emails but I don't
> want to invest too much time unless it's actually a problem, so please
> LMK if this limitation is stopping anyone from using the bot.

Very cool! Follow-up question: are you expecting subsystem maintainers
to make use of this, or can we continue to rely on your benevolent
curation of patchwork states and only consider this an optional add-on? :)

Also, this only applies to the netdevbpf patchwork instance, right?

-Toke