Re: [Qemu-devel] [PATCH] get_maintainer.pl: Default to --no-git-fallback

["Michael S. Tsirkin" <mst@redhat.com>]

On Tue, Oct 21, 2014 at 02:22:41PM +0200, Markus Armbruster wrote:
> "Michael S. Tsirkin" <mst@redhat.com> writes:
> 
> > On Tue, Oct 21, 2014 at 11:31:12AM +0200, Markus Armbruster wrote:
> >> "Michael S. Tsirkin" <mst@redhat.com> writes:
> >> 
> >> > On Mon, Oct 20, 2014 at 03:19:52PM +0100, Peter Maydell wrote:
> >> >> On 20 October 2014 15:15, Michael S. Tsirkin <mst@redhat.com> wrote:
> >> >> > On Mon, Oct 20, 2014 at 03:04:44PM +0100, Peter Maydell wrote:
> >> >> >> On 20 October 2014 10:19, Markus Armbruster <armbru@redhat.com> wrote:
> >> >> >> > Contributors rely on this script to find maintainers to copy.  The
> >> >> >> > script falls back to git when no exact MAINTAINERS pattern matches.
> >> >> >> > When that happens, recent contributors get copied, which tends not be
> >> >> >> > particularly useful.  Some contributors find it even annoying.
> >> >> >> >
> >> >> >> > Flip the default to "don't fall back to git".  Use --git-fallback to
> >> >> >> > ask it to fall back to git.
> >> >> 
> >> >> >> Good idea.
> >> >> 
> >> >> > What do you want to happen in this case?
> >> >> 
> >> >> It should mail the people who are actually maintainers,
> >> >> not anybody who happened to touch the code in the last
> >> >> year.
> >> >
> >> > Right but as often as not there's no data about that
> >> > in MAINTAINERS.
> >> 
> >> The way to fix that is finding maintainers, not scatter-shooting patches
> >> to random contributors in the vague hope of hitting someone who cares.
> >> 
> >> >> > I'm yet to see contributors who are annoyed but we
> >> >> > can always blacklist specific people.
> >> >> 
> >> >> At the moment I just don't use get_maintainers.pl at
> >> >> all because I tried it a few times and it just cc'd
> >> >> a bunch of irrelevant people...
> >> >> 
> >> >> I suspect anybody using it at the moment is either
> >> >> using the --no-git-fallback flag or trimming the
> >> >> cc list a lot.
> >> >> 
> >> >> thanks
> >> >> -- PMM
> >> >
> >> > I'm using it: sometimes with --no-git-fallback, sometimes without.
> >> 
> >> I'm using it, but I absolutely want to know when it falls back to git,
> >> because then I want to cheack and trim or ignore its output every single
> >> time.
> >
> >
> > Well it tells you the role. What else is necessary?
> 
> For my own use in sending patches, nothing.  I know how to use it to
> help me copy the right people.
> 
> >> > IIUC the default is to have up to 5 people on the Cc list
> >> > (--git-max-maintainers).
> >> > It's not like it adds 200 random people, is it?
> >> >
> >> > Anyway experienced contributors can figure it out IMHO.
> >> 
> >> Experienced contributors can figure out --git-fallback, too.
> >
> > Exactly.
> >
> >> What we see is contributors, especially less experienced ones, copying
> >> whatever get_maintainers.pl spits out, because they have no idea what
> >> get_maintainers.pl actually does.
> >
> > Exactly. And this seems better than just sending to qemu ML
> > and not copying anyone.
> 
> That's where we disagree.
> 
> Personally, I don't mind getting punished for contributing patches by
> getting copied indiscriminately all that much.  It's a drain on my time,
> but I can cope.  However, I know people who do mind, and some of them
> have spoken up in this thread.
> 
> Copying people is not free.  You should *think* before you copy.
> 
> An entry in MAINTAINERS dispenses you from this obligation, because the
> people listed explicitly asked for a copy.
> 
> Finding someone in git-log does not!
> 
> get_maintainers.pl encourages its users to treat people found in git-log
> exactly like the ones in MAINTAINERS.  Treating them the same is
> *wrong*.
> 
> >> > Question in my mind is what do we want a casual contributor
> >> > to do if there's no one listed in MAINTAINERS.
> >> > "Look in MAINTAINERS, if not there, look in git log"
> >> > sounds very reasonable to me, better than "CC no one".
> >> 
> >> But that's not what we do!  We do "copy whatever get_maintainers.pl
> >> coughs up", which boils down to "use MAINTAINERS, if not there, grab
> >> some random victims from git-log".
> >
> > Sorry, what's the difference?
> > "look in" versus "random victims"? what makes them random?
> 
> The difference is using get_maintainers.pl to help finding whom to copy
> vs. blindly copying whoever get_maintainers.pl coughs up.
> 
> > Maybe you just want to increase git-min-percent?
> >
> >> Perhaps we'd get slightly better results if get_maintainers.pl told its
> >> users clearly about the two kinds of output it may produce: maintainers
> >> (must be copied on patches), and recent contributors (you're in trouble;
> >> copying some of them may or may not help).
> >
> > That's what it does: it reports the role, and the percent.
> 
> Boldly assumes the user of get_maintainers.pl knows what it does, and
> knows how to interpret runes like (commit_signer:14/22=64%).

OK so you would like a flag for a more readable output?
Sounds very reasonable.

> > What's missing?
> 
> What's really missing is decent coverage by MAINTAINERS.  I figure my
> patch is controversial only because MAINTAINERS is so woefully
> incomplete.

In fact if MAINTAINERS covered everything your patch won't be needed
right?

> My patch to get_maintainers.pl triggered a whole thread, while the
> message I sent on MAINTAINERS coverage got just one reply so far, and
> even that one's really just about get_maintainers.pl.  Disappointing.
> Looks like we're still looking for an easy technical fix.  I doubt there
> is one.

At least for myself, that's because I'm Cc'd directly on the patch
but not on the MAINTAINERS coverage mail.
And that's ... because get_maintainers picks my mail from git?

See how it's useful now?


> If you have better ideas on how to mitigate the excessive and useless
> copying we now see, please post a patch.

We need more maintainers :)