On Fri, Nov 16, 2018 at 11:57 AM Joe Perches <[email protected]> wrote: > > On Fri, 2018-11-16 at 14:44 +0200, Jani Nikula wrote: > > I quickly cooked up this script to produce the top-5 commit prefixes for > > the given files over the arbitrary last 200 commits. It'll give you a > > pretty good idea if you're even close. > > > > --- > > #!/bin/sh > > # usage: subject-prefix FILE [...] > > # show top 5 subject prefixes for FILEs > > > > git log --format=%s -n 200 -- "$@" |\ > > grep -v "^Merge " |\
--no-merges in git log can replace this line. > > sed 's/\(.*\):.*/\1/' |\ > > sort | uniq -c | sort -nr | sed 's/ *[0-9]\+ //' |\ > > head -n 5 > > --- > > > > Someone who knows perl could turn that into a checkpatch check: See if > > the patch subject prefix is one of the top-5 for all files changed by > > the patch, and ask the user to double check if it isn't. Or some > > heuristics thereof. > > This won't work when a patch contains multiple files > from different paths, or even multiple files from a > single driver. Different paths is often, but not always a sign that patches may need to be split up. Maybe that is something checkpatch should point out. > Perhaps it's better to use a generic mechanism like > > basename $(dirname $filename): > > with some exceptions and add an override patch subject > grammar to appropriate various sections of MAINTAINERS. Perhaps just use the script as a starting point to populate MAINTAINERS as it may never be that accurate. > I also think it's better to use a separate script like > scripts/spdxcheck.py and tie any necessary checkpatch > use to that script. Yes, checkpatch is getting pretty unwieldy. Rob _______________________________________________ Linux-nvdimm mailing list [email protected] https://lists.01.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-nvdimm
