Re: [PATCH] get_maintainer: Don't fallback to git by default

On Wed, 28 Oct 2015, Wolfram Sang wrote: > > Some top level directories contain other subsystems. > > > > A maintainer of something like arch/arm doesn't generally > > want to be the maintainer of arch/arm/mach- > > > > You _want_ a wider number of reviewers for patches to any > > of those

Re: [PATCH] get_maintainer: Don't fallback to git by default

On Wed, 28 Oct 2015, Wolfram Sang wrote: > > Some top level directories contain other subsystems. > > > > A maintainer of something like arch/arm doesn't generally > > want to be the maintainer of arch/arm/mach- > > > > You _want_ a wider number of reviewers for patches to any > > of those

Re: [PATCH] get_maintainer: Don't fallback to git by default

On Wed, 2015-10-28 at 01:05 +0100, Wolfram Sang wrote: > > Some top level directories contain other subsystems. > > > > A maintainer of something like arch/arm doesn't generally > > want to be the maintainer of arch/arm/mach- > > > > You _want_ a wider number of reviewers for patches to any > >

Re: [PATCH] get_maintainer: Don't fallback to git by default

> Some top level directories contain other subsystems. > > A maintainer of something like arch/arm doesn't generally > want to be the maintainer of arch/arm/mach- > > You _want_ a wider number of reviewers for patches to any > of those unmaintained subsystems. I agree. +F: drivers/i2c/*/

Re: [PATCH] get_maintainer: Don't fallback to git by default

On Wed, 2015-10-28 at 00:25 +0100, Wolfram Sang wrote: > > Another option would be to add another pattern to the > > I2C section that matches all subdirectories of drivers/i2c/: > > --- > > MAINTAINERS | 1 + > > 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+) > > > > diff --git a/MAINTAINERS b/MAINTAINERS > >

Re: [PATCH] get_maintainer: Don't fallback to git by default

> Another option would be to add another pattern to the > I2C section that matches all subdirectories of drivers/i2c/: > --- > MAINTAINERS | 1 + > 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+) > > diff --git a/MAINTAINERS b/MAINTAINERS > index fb7d2e4..c670e1f 100644 > --- a/MAINTAINERS > +++ b/MAINTAINERS >

Re: [PATCH] get_maintainer: Don't fallback to git by default

Hello, On 10/28/2015 03:09 AM, Lee Jones wrote: > On Tue, 27 Oct 2015, Joe Perches wrote: > >> On Tue, 2015-10-27 at 08:21 +, Lee Jones wrote: >>> On Mon, 26 Oct 2015, j...@perches.com wrote: On 2015-10-26 19:47, Theodore Ts'o wrote: > What if we have a git_fallback "auto" mode

Re: [PATCH] get_maintainer: Don't fallback to git by default

On Tue, 2015-10-27 at 10:49 -0700, Joe Perches wrote: > On Tue, 2015-10-27 at 11:29 +0100, Wolfram Sang wrote: > > > act as reviewers, they should have a mention in MAINTAINERS for > > > get_maintiner.pl to pull information from: > > > > > > R: Designated reviewer: FullName > > >These

Re: [PATCH] get_maintainer: Don't fallback to git by default

On Tue, 27 Oct 2015, Joe Perches wrote: > On Tue, 2015-10-27 at 08:21 +, Lee Jones wrote: > > On Mon, 26 Oct 2015, j...@perches.com wrote: > > > On 2015-10-26 19:47, Theodore Ts'o wrote: > > > >What if we have a git_fallback "auto" mode which only falls back to > > > >using git if there is no

Re: [PATCH] get_maintainer: Don't fallback to git by default

On Tue, 2015-10-27 at 08:21 +, Lee Jones wrote: > On Mon, 26 Oct 2015, j...@perches.com wrote: > > On 2015-10-26 19:47, Theodore Ts'o wrote: > > >What if we have a git_fallback "auto" mode which only falls back to > > >using git if there is no entry in the MAINTAINERS file? That might > >

Re: [PATCH] get_maintainer: Don't fallback to git by default

On Tue, 2015-10-27 at 11:29 +0100, Wolfram Sang wrote: > > act as reviewers, they should have a mention in MAINTAINERS for > > get_maintiner.pl to pull information from: > > > > R: Designated reviewer: FullName > >These reviewers should be CCed on patches. > > I think this should do. > >

Re: [PATCH] get_maintainer: Don't fallback to git by default

> act as reviewers, they should have a mention in MAINTAINERS for > get_maintiner.pl to pull information from: > > R: Designated reviewer: FullName >These reviewers should be CCed on patches. I think this should do. Interested parties should start by scanning the mailing list :)

Re: [PATCH] get_maintainer: Don't fallback to git by default

On Tue, 27 Oct 2015, Wolfram Sang wrote: > > Anyone south of Wolfram and north of the I2C ML is unlikely to care. > > Actually, driver maintainers should care about their portion of it. > Which leads me to the conclusion that driver maintainer entries in > MAINTAINERS should have the relevant

Re: [PATCH] get_maintainer: Don't fallback to git by default

> Anyone south of Wolfram and north of the I2C ML is unlikely to care. Actually, driver maintainers should care about their portion of it. Which leads me to the conclusion that driver maintainer entries in MAINTAINERS should have the relevant Kconfig symbol as a keyword match, probably.

Re: [PATCH] get_maintainer: Don't fallback to git by default

On Mon, 26 Oct 2015, j...@perches.com wrote: > On 2015-10-26 19:47, Theodore Ts'o wrote: > >What if we have a git_fallback "auto" mode which only falls back to > >using git if there is no entry in the MAINTAINERS file? That might > >address the concern which Laura raised, without blocking this >

Re: [PATCH] get_maintainer: Don't fallback to git by default

On Mon, 26 Oct 2015, j...@perches.com wrote: > On 2015-10-26 19:47, Theodore Ts'o wrote: > >What if we have a git_fallback "auto" mode which only falls back to > >using git if there is no entry in the MAINTAINERS file? That might > >address the concern which Laura raised, without blocking this >

Re: [PATCH] get_maintainer: Don't fallback to git by default

> Anyone south of Wolfram and north of the I2C ML is unlikely to care. Actually, driver maintainers should care about their portion of it. Which leads me to the conclusion that driver maintainer entries in MAINTAINERS should have the relevant Kconfig symbol as a keyword match, probably.

Re: [PATCH] get_maintainer: Don't fallback to git by default

> act as reviewers, they should have a mention in MAINTAINERS for > get_maintiner.pl to pull information from: > > R: Designated reviewer: FullName >These reviewers should be CCed on patches. I think this should do. Interested parties should start by scanning the mailing

Re: [PATCH] get_maintainer: Don't fallback to git by default

On Tue, 27 Oct 2015, Wolfram Sang wrote: > > Anyone south of Wolfram and north of the I2C ML is unlikely to care. > > Actually, driver maintainers should care about their portion of it. > Which leads me to the conclusion that driver maintainer entries in > MAINTAINERS should have the relevant

Re: [PATCH] get_maintainer: Don't fallback to git by default

On Tue, 27 Oct 2015, Joe Perches wrote: > On Tue, 2015-10-27 at 08:21 +, Lee Jones wrote: > > On Mon, 26 Oct 2015, j...@perches.com wrote: > > > On 2015-10-26 19:47, Theodore Ts'o wrote: > > > >What if we have a git_fallback "auto" mode which only falls back to > > > >using git if there is no

Re: [PATCH] get_maintainer: Don't fallback to git by default

On Tue, 2015-10-27 at 08:21 +, Lee Jones wrote: > On Mon, 26 Oct 2015, j...@perches.com wrote: > > On 2015-10-26 19:47, Theodore Ts'o wrote: > > >What if we have a git_fallback "auto" mode which only falls back to > > >using git if there is no entry in the MAINTAINERS file? That might > >

Re: [PATCH] get_maintainer: Don't fallback to git by default

On Tue, 2015-10-27 at 11:29 +0100, Wolfram Sang wrote: > > act as reviewers, they should have a mention in MAINTAINERS for > > get_maintiner.pl to pull information from: > > > > R: Designated reviewer: FullName > >These reviewers should be CCed on patches. > > I think this

Re: [PATCH] get_maintainer: Don't fallback to git by default

On Tue, 2015-10-27 at 10:49 -0700, Joe Perches wrote: > On Tue, 2015-10-27 at 11:29 +0100, Wolfram Sang wrote: > > > act as reviewers, they should have a mention in MAINTAINERS for > > > get_maintiner.pl to pull information from: > > > > > > R: Designated reviewer: FullName > > >

Re: [PATCH] get_maintainer: Don't fallback to git by default

Hello, On 10/28/2015 03:09 AM, Lee Jones wrote: > On Tue, 27 Oct 2015, Joe Perches wrote: > >> On Tue, 2015-10-27 at 08:21 +, Lee Jones wrote: >>> On Mon, 26 Oct 2015, j...@perches.com wrote: On 2015-10-26 19:47, Theodore Ts'o wrote: > What if we have a git_fallback "auto" mode

Re: [PATCH] get_maintainer: Don't fallback to git by default

> Another option would be to add another pattern to the > I2C section that matches all subdirectories of drivers/i2c/: > --- > MAINTAINERS | 1 + > 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+) > > diff --git a/MAINTAINERS b/MAINTAINERS > index fb7d2e4..c670e1f 100644 > --- a/MAINTAINERS > +++ b/MAINTAINERS >

Re: [PATCH] get_maintainer: Don't fallback to git by default

On Wed, 2015-10-28 at 01:05 +0100, Wolfram Sang wrote: > > Some top level directories contain other subsystems. > > > > A maintainer of something like arch/arm doesn't generally > > want to be the maintainer of arch/arm/mach- > > > > You _want_ a wider number of reviewers for patches to any > >

Re: [PATCH] get_maintainer: Don't fallback to git by default

On Wed, 2015-10-28 at 00:25 +0100, Wolfram Sang wrote: > > Another option would be to add another pattern to the > > I2C section that matches all subdirectories of drivers/i2c/: > > --- > > MAINTAINERS | 1 + > > 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+) > > > > diff --git a/MAINTAINERS b/MAINTAINERS > >

Re: [PATCH] get_maintainer: Don't fallback to git by default

> Some top level directories contain other subsystems. > > A maintainer of something like arch/arm doesn't generally > want to be the maintainer of arch/arm/mach- > > You _want_ a wider number of reviewers for patches to any > of those unmaintained subsystems. I agree. +F: drivers/i2c/*/

Re: [PATCH] get_maintainer: Don't fallback to git by default

On 10/26/15 9:57 PM, j...@perches.com wrote: On 2015-10-26 19:47, Theodore Ts'o wrote: What if we have a git_fallback "auto" mode which only falls back to using git if there is no entry in the MAINTAINERS file? That might address the concern which Laura raised, without blocking this change

Re: [PATCH] get_maintainer: Don't fallback to git by default

On 2015-10-26 19:47, Theodore Ts'o wrote: What if we have a git_fallback "auto" mode which only falls back to using git if there is no entry in the MAINTAINERS file? That might address the concern which Laura raised, without blocking this change until the MAINTAINERS file is fully populated.

Re: [PATCH] get_maintainer: Don't fallback to git by default

What if we have a git_fallback "auto" mode which only falls back to using git if there is no entry in the MAINTAINERS file? That might address the concern which Laura raised, without blocking this change until the MAINTAINERS file is fully populated. Cheers,

Re: [PATCH] get_maintainer: Don't fallback to git by default

Hello Laura, Thanks a lot for your feedback. On 10/27/2015 08:00 AM, Laura Abbott wrote: > On 10/26/2015 03:11 PM, Javier Martinez Canillas wrote: >> The get_maintainer.pl script could be used to get a list of people that >> has to be in the copy list when posting patches for a given file but

Re: [PATCH] get_maintainer: Don't fallback to git by default

On 10/26/2015 03:11 PM, Javier Martinez Canillas wrote: The get_maintainer.pl script could be used to get a list of people that has to be in the copy list when posting patches for a given file but it defaults to git fallback so the list returned isn't really relevant and submitters are posting

[PATCH] get_maintainer: Don't fallback to git by default

The get_maintainer.pl script could be used to get a list of people that has to be in the copy list when posting patches for a given file but it defaults to git fallback so the list returned isn't really relevant and submitters are posting patches to random developers that just happened to touch

Re: [PATCH] get_maintainer: Don't fallback to git by default

Hello Laura, Thanks a lot for your feedback. On 10/27/2015 08:00 AM, Laura Abbott wrote: > On 10/26/2015 03:11 PM, Javier Martinez Canillas wrote: >> The get_maintainer.pl script could be used to get a list of people that >> has to be in the copy list when posting patches for a given file but

[PATCH] get_maintainer: Don't fallback to git by default

The get_maintainer.pl script could be used to get a list of people that has to be in the copy list when posting patches for a given file but it defaults to git fallback so the list returned isn't really relevant and submitters are posting patches to random developers that just happened to touch

Re: [PATCH] get_maintainer: Don't fallback to git by default

On 10/26/2015 03:11 PM, Javier Martinez Canillas wrote: The get_maintainer.pl script could be used to get a list of people that has to be in the copy list when posting patches for a given file but it defaults to git fallback so the list returned isn't really relevant and submitters are posting

Re: [PATCH] get_maintainer: Don't fallback to git by default

What if we have a git_fallback "auto" mode which only falls back to using git if there is no entry in the MAINTAINERS file? That might address the concern which Laura raised, without blocking this change until the MAINTAINERS file is fully populated. Cheers,

Re: [PATCH] get_maintainer: Don't fallback to git by default

On 2015-10-26 19:47, Theodore Ts'o wrote: What if we have a git_fallback "auto" mode which only falls back to using git if there is no entry in the MAINTAINERS file? That might address the concern which Laura raised, without blocking this change until the MAINTAINERS file is fully populated.

Re: [PATCH] get_maintainer: Don't fallback to git by default

On 10/26/15 9:57 PM, j...@perches.com wrote: On 2015-10-26 19:47, Theodore Ts'o wrote: What if we have a git_fallback "auto" mode which only falls back to using git if there is no entry in the MAINTAINERS file? That might address the concern which Laura raised, without blocking this change