Re: [PATCH] mailmap: Fix Andrey Drobyshev author email

[Peter Maydell <peter.maydell@linaro.org>]

On Tue, 26 Sept 2023 at 20:42, Eric Blake <eblake@redhat.com> wrote:
>
> On Tue, Sep 26, 2023 at 02:46:44PM +0100, Peter Maydell wrote:
> > On Tue, 26 Sept 2023 at 14:40, Eric Blake <eblake@redhat.com> wrote:
> > >
> > > On Tue, Sep 26, 2023 at 01:28:01PM +0300, andrey.drobyshev@virtuozzo.com wrote:
> > > > From: Andrey Drobyshev <andrey.drobyshev@virtuozzo.com>
> > > >
> > > > This fixes authorship of commits 2848289168, 52b10c9c0c as the mailing
> > > > list rewrote the "From:" field in the corresponding patches.  See commit
> > > > 3bd2608db7 ("maint: Add .mailmap entries for patches claiming list
> > > > authorship") for explanation.
> > > >
> > > > Signed-off-by: Andrey Drobyshev <andrey.drobyshev@virtuozzo.com>
> > > > ---
> > > >  .mailmap | 1 +
> > > >  1 file changed, 1 insertion(+)
> > >
> > > Reviewed-by: Eric Blake <eblake@redhat.com>
> >
> > Hi Eric -- you wrote commit 3bd2608db72997, which included the
> > comment for this bit of .mailmap:
> >
> > +# Next, translate a few commits where mailman rewrote the From: line due
> > +# to strict SPF, although we prefer to avoid adding more entries like that.
> >
> > What did you mean by "we prefer to avoid adding more entries" ?
> > It reads to me like "don't add more entries even if we get more
> > accidental attributed-to-the-list commits" (and I was actually
> > thinking about replying to this patch to say "the mailmap file
> > says we shouldn't add more of these lines"), but presumably since
> > you've reviewed this patch that wasn't the actual intention.
> > Maybe the comment could use clarification.
>
> Indeed, it is meant more along the lines of "because our build process
> was tweaked to warn us in advance of merging more commits that suffer
> from the same problem, we shouldn't be having to continually increase
> the size of this section", or even "if you end up adding a line here,
> please also take the time to figure out what part of our build process
> failed to catch it in advance" (in this particular instance, the
> failure was effectively that we were grepping for 'via qemu-devel',
> not 'via qemu-.*').  If wording along those lines is better, or if you
> have other ideas, I'm happy to turn it into a formal commit to improve
> the comment in that file.

Yes, I think something like that would be clearer; thanks!

-- PMM